Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 4 of 7 - Downtown Specific Plan Update - Public Hearing ZONING 'TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08®004 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO® 0 - 07 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO® 0 -002 EIR NO® 08-001 ATTACHMENT NO. 21 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DTSP UPDATE Page 1 of 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:53 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Fw: MAIN STREET LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS From: Ruthe Gorman To: Fritzal, Kellee; Machado, Jason Cc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Sent: Thu Jan 15 14:24:29 2009 Subject: MAIN STREET LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS I an a long-time resident of Huntington Beach and live at 726 Main Street. I am also a volunteer at the Main Street branch of the HB Library. The purpose of this e-mail is to urge the City not to build at 4-story center on the library property for a number of reasons, including the following: l. The building would wipe out the"green" space residents now enjoy. This site is virtually the only park-like open space in the immediate vicinity. 2. Its monolithic size and height would dwarf the nearby buildings and result in lower residential property values in the surrounding area. There are no 4-story buildings downtown, including the commercial district, and the proposed building would be totally incompatible and stand out like a sore thumb. 3. The new center would result in the eventual closing of the Main Street library, which would be a major loss to the many downtown (and other) residents who rely on the library for many reasons. It would also create a hardship for senior citizens and others who are unable to drive to the Talbert Street library. Also, the library is used constantly by many visitors who utilize the computers and other research materials. I am not against progress and have watched the downtown area evolve from being a rundown eyesore in the early 1980s to a thriving and attractive location enjoyed by both residents and tourists. However, a huge 4-story structure plopped down in the middle of a peaceful residential area does not represent progress. It is a stupid concept and building it would be detrimental to the quality of life now enjoyed by both residents and visitors. Ruthe Gorman 726 Main Street (714 960-1846 1/27/2009 Public Comments on Draft DTSP RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2009 Bob Corona (714) 960-6990 (714) 342-4095 (cell) • Development standards—consider allowances for clear glass to top a maximum 42" height wall; 25' required setback on PCH—reduce to 10' to allow for patios/landscaping other than lawn/turf • Design guidelines—good! Pictures and images shown in Design Guidelines generally good except corporate signage picture of Burger King (consider using different image to show good example of good corporate signage); stay away from trendy design themes—encourage architecture that will stand the test of time • Parking—trolley system—good idea! Shuttle service—good idea! tiered-parking structure at beach—not a good idea—will be problematic; best to leave beach and pier alone as it is main attraction for downtown • Wayfinding signs—good! • Chapters 7 and 8 —good! 2°d right turn lane on Goldenwest to PCH should be of highest priority Page 1 of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:15 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer; Fauland, Herb Cc: Hess, Scott Subject: FW: Team One—Jeff's comments From: Kellee Fritzal [mailto:kel970@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:58 AM To: Fritzal, Kellee Subject: City of Huntington Beach 1/23/2009 Redevelopment and Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA RE: Comment on D.T.S.P. 1. My goal is that items within the plan be changed or deleted if an item would deter development from its maximum potential or practical implementation. Small code items can have the net effect of making a project not "pencil." Make the code as specific as possible allowing Administrative approval (Director and Zoning Administration) except for "Major Projects" which would require D.R.B. and Planning Commission Review. All other projects should be non-discretionary. (Section 2..5 and Permitted Use Tables). 3a. (2.7) Definitions: Omit "Full block" and "Half Block" definitions and replace with definitions for "Major Project" and/or "Face Block": Net Lot area of 25,000 s.f. or 200 I.f.t. of street frontage. 3b. "Height of Building" add: excluding penthouse structures located 30' from property lines, not to exceed 10' above maximum height. 4. (3.2.6.2) Omit requirement to access only from alleys. Access could be from "side" streets including Walnut, Olive, Orange, Pecan, Acacia, Palm ("Tree Street") 5. (3.2.6.3) Change `full block" to "major projects" or"face block." 6. (3.2.10.2) Omit five foot setback for subterranean structures; utilities are in alleys and would not affect most streets. Public Works can address on a "Major Project" review. 7. (3.2.13) Mixed-Use Projects: Omit#3. Common entries work well, access to residential area can be limited by 1/26/2009 Page 2 of 3 elevator or door key/card. Omit#4. Shared parking for guests and commercial is desired. Omit#6 Not needed. Change #7 to allow for Live/Work access. Omit "state-of-the-art" to open to interpretation. 8. (3.2.15.1.4 Private) Open Space: Add "planted (vine) fence" and change to 60" height (privacy). Also, glass dividers. 9. (3.2.18) Refuse and Recycling: Omit#3. Most trash rooms are in the buildings in downtown. Add to #5, Building Code approved trash chutes can meet this requirement. 10. (3.2.19) Affordable Housing: All sites are within Project Area? 11. (3.2.20) Residential Buffers: Change to apply to the perimeter of all districts. Figure 3.-8 is good illustration of height, density and `cake' setbacks to achieve density with less impact to residential, make illustration larger for better reference. Eliminate "state-of-the- art" in #7, maybe add scrubber requirements at perimeter projects only. 12. (3.2.22.5) Projecting or Hanging Sign: Are these not commonly called "Blade" signs? 13. (3.2.24.1.4) Allow outdoor dining next to building on Main to 5th Street parkways. 14. (3.2.24.3) Parking for Outdoor Dining: Omit maximum tables and seats, difficult to enforce-...Set area (1,200 s.f.) is easier to control. 15. (3.2.26.1) Parking Space Dimensions: Change space dimensions to 8.5' wide by 18' long with 25' Aisle and allow for column /wall incursions except at door swing area. Change notes in matrix to correspond. 16. (3.2.26.10.1) c.) District Special Standard: Remove 50% requirement and add that 'x' number of parking spaces are available to be used in the in-lieu fee program. In-lieu parking is allowed for commercial /guest parking only. In-lieu fee amounts established by City Council. City will provide new parking spaces in a timely manner for in-lieu parking program when current residual spaces have been allocated. 17. (3.3.1.3) Permitted Uses: Expand "green zone" residential on ground floor" to 3rd Street east and 2nd Street/ 1st Street southwest to Alley at PCH. These areas not viable as commercial. 1/26/2009 Page 3 of 3 18. (3-40) Permitted Uses: Add Family Doctor, Dentist and Quick Clinic, Emergicare to permitted uses. 19. (3-42) Summary of Development Standards District 1 Commercial Only: Minimum Parcel Size: -5,000 s.f. / 50' frontage Maximum Building Height: 40' / 3-stories Major project/ Face Block— 50' /4-stories with cake step- backs Front Yard Setback: Minimum 0', Maximum 5' Public Open Space: N/A except Major Projects = 4% + Paseo + Public Art Piece 20. (3.3.1.8) Building Height: See above 21. (3.3.17) Maximum Density: 40 units /acre Major Project: 60 Units /acre 22. (3.3.1.14) Public Open Space: See above 23. (3.3.1.15) Storefront 3) add low-e coatings permitted. 24. (3-57) Maximum Height: 50' /4 story with cake step-backs 25. (3-59) Cultural Arts Plaza: Add alternative street closure designs to communicate conceptual nature of this area. 26. (Figure 3-5) Alley Dedications: Alley at Main Street east should be uneven dedication (existing large dedication on one side) 27. (3.2.22.1) General Sign Standards: 3) Projects may have five users but only need signs for two users. Change to "five users with signs." 28. Plan should address undergrounding of electrical distribution system, future transformer and vault locations. 1/26/2009 RE: Comments to Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan RECEIVED JAM Z8 2009 After reviewing the Draft Specific Plan I have the following comments: 1. The Specific Plan states as one the goals and objectives are to increase city revenue and create a well balance mix of land uses for both residences and visitors. The Plan however, emphasizes development for more visitors during peak time usage than development for local residence during non-peak times. The amount of revenue the city derives is directly related to usage. During peak times there is only limited extra capacity to drive more revenue. During non-peak times (49% of the days per the Parking Study) there is much more potential to increase revenues. If the City's goal is to increase revenue and have a well balance mix of land uses, then the emphasis should be on increasing usage when there is more headroom for revenue, and focus on local residence. 2. Priority needs to focus on the future development of Walnut Avenue as a pedestrian link with Pacific City. Currently, the emphasis is using PCH as the primary pedestrian link between downtown and Pacific City. PCH is uninviting as a pedestrian link because Pierside Colony lacks ground floor retail, creating a non-pedestrian friendly"retail dead zone". Only the north side of Walnut Avenue could provide a continuous stretch of retail uses and a pedestrian friendly link between Main Street and Pacific City. The Specific Plan should use the same street concepts for Walnut Avenue as it proposes for 51h Street. A strong early priority needs to be given to straightening Walnut Avenue with Pacific View to allow an easy to follow linkage to Main Street that will be visually understandable by visitors. 3. Development north of Orange Avenue along Main Street is being proposed for high-density tourist oriented land uses. The emphasis should be for local residence land uses that bring a balance of retail uses to downtown. Retail use could include smaller format grocery store, hardware store, or service oriented stores. The smaller format stores of Fresh&Easy would be feasible near this intersection. No hotels should be allowed north of Orange Avenue and no development over three stories. 4. The block with the Main Street Library should remain as, open space. We already have a newly remodeled Performing Arts Center less than a mile along Main Street at Huntington High School and another facility at the Central Library. A third smaller facility with expensive underground parking is clearly not needed nor feasible. This block should remain as open public space and no 4 or 5 story development should be allowed. 5. While the city has limited control over the cars we drive, the city controls the parking and rates. The new Plan should create a few parking spaces for Low Emmission Vehicles (LEV) or Low Speed Vehicles (LSV) to encourage their use, minimizing traffic, and lower environmental emissions. Newport Beach and other beach communities already provide smaller parking spaces for LEV and LSV with lower parking fees. The Parking Study that is a part of this plan has incorrect conclusions and future strategies. The Parking Study only focused on daily parking charges and not monthly charges. Employee's working downtown do not utilize free street parking located blocks away, when they can park in the Main Promenade Garage or the beach lots for 57¢ per day($1501220 work days=57¢ per day). The beach lots and a description of Pacific City's parking facility should be mentioned and studied. Frankly, the downtown area has an abundance of parking when compared to other nearby beach towns of Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. The parking study concludes it reaches capacity only 5% of the days. There is a need to direct drivers to available empty spaces, but there is rarely a shortage of empty stalls. 6. Objective 2 (1.5.2.3) states the plan should encourage development of underused existing properties. The east side of Pierside Pavilion is a"retail dead zone". This area needs new ideas and city assistance. One solution: create a"Gallery Row" along both sides of the east plaza. Move many of the vendor's from the upper pier parking area to the new"Gallery Row". The vendors will have a permanent home, pay more revenue to the city, and reinforce the link between PCH and Walnut Avenue. The Plan should also address the closed theatres. I look forward to participating in this planning process. Richard Plummer 940 11 th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 960-4542 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org Website: www.hbtomorrow.org RECEIVED JAN 26 2009 January 23, 2009 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ref: Downtown Specific Plan Draft Attn: Jennifer Villasenor Here are our comments on this well done, professional specific plan. Land Use & Development Standards I.All Districts — Some residential development standards are in excess of existing zoning ordinance standards.This would result in overbuilding a site and diminish the quality of life for residents and the public. Recommendations: Ensure residential development standards do not exceed the development standards approved for Bella Terra II. Page 3-42 and 3-43. Change the maximum density for residential only table for 1", 2°d and Lake from the proposed 60 du/ac to existing density. Reflect the same in 3.3.1.7. II.Page 3-56 Cultural Arts Overlay The cultural arts overlay allows an intensity of use that is incompatible with existing residential uses. The purpose of the cultural arts overlay should be revisited and practicality assessed. Funding, usage and community support questions should be answered before the plan is adopted. Recommendations: Page 3-56, 5)Maximum site coverage should be changed to 50%. City standard has always been 50%. 60% would allow too massive a building. Page 3-56 7) Maximum building height should be changed to 35 feet. Buildings in this area should be limited to three stories to avoid glaring incompatibility with adjacent residential structures. Page 3-57 Maximum intensity FAR should be changed to 2.25 from 3.0. A massive building would be out of character for this location. Either the building needs should be reduced or another site should be found. Page 3-57 8) Upper story setback shall be required. City design guidelines require upper story setbacks. Planning Commission and Design Review Board review should be stated. III. Permitted Uses District 7 Recommendations: Parking Lots on the seaward side of the bluffs shall not be allowed if automobiles and traffic interfere with the aesthetics, safety,views and use of the bluff top and beach.The public has previously voiced significant opposition to seaward side parking proposals. Recommendation: Determine if the proposed project assuages the public's concerns as stated above before inclusion in the plan. HBT Downtown Specific Plan Subcommittee Ed Kerins Mark Porter Page 1 of I Stephenson,Johanna ��� From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday,January 26,2009 8:50 AM To: Stephenson,Johanna;Van Dom, Kay Subject: FW:Main Street Library From: Mark Leeson [mairw:mleeson@thematicekgroup.cm] Sent:Saturday,January 24,2009 8:23 PM To:CITY COUNCIL Subject: Main Street Library Dear City Council Members: As a long time resident of Huntington Beach I would like to make known my strong opposition to the proposed development on the Main Street Library site. Open space in the downtown area is already in short supply. In recent years the practice of building two houses on the original 50 foot lots has already degraded the atmosphere of our city. Our tax dollars would be much better used cleaning up the alleys in the downtown area. This will enhance the look and feel of Huntington Beach far more than one more over budget underutilized developers dream. Yours truly, Mark K.Leeson 515 Pecan Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Off_ 1-714-596-6648 Cell 1-714-308-6612 1/26/2009 Roger and Marilyn Smith 501 Pecan Avenue, Huntington Beach,CA 92648/714-969-5125 /rocketpuy99@socal.rr.com January 22, 2009 Mayor Keith Bohr and Council Members Carchio,Coerper,Green, Hansen, Hardy,and Dwyer - City of Huntington Beach via city.council@surfcity-hb.org Re: Downtown Specific Plan New Performing Arts Center Dear Mayor Bohr: As residents of downtown Huntington Beach,we are very concerned about the possibility of an Arts Center on the property at 525 Main Street and the many identified and yet to be identified consequential problems. We love Huntington Beach. We love the park at 525 Main Street where many people enjoy playing sports, exercising their dogs,relaxing outdoors,and a multitude of other special activities. We're a city of walkers, bicyclers,pet-lovers,and nature-lovers,and all of us see the 525 Main Street park as a refuge and oasis that greatly contributes to the quality of our lives and brings in balance and beauty to an otherwise growing congestion of concrete,traffic,and loss of historical preservation. We share in the affection so many people feel for Huntington Beach,and ours is boosted every time another person voices their awe over the regal ambiance and sense of preserved history along Main Street,from Yorktown to 6`h Street. Really,we're yet to have an out-of-town guest who drives that route who doesn't rave about the unique and amazing feeling created by that stretch. The awe is never about just one thing,but includes appreciation of and amazement over the charming homes and yards,the a historical high school buildings,the Lake.:Park,the.525 main.Street library,and the 525 Main Street park. We Love taking our grandchildren and others across the street to enjoy the 525 Main Street park. We spend quality time in the 525 Main Street library. We often stroll up Main Street toward Lake Park and sometimes cross the street with the children's crossing guard. My primary point in all of these descriptions is that the proposed Cultural Center would eliminate and/or drastically minimize the charm and beauty of the area between Yorktown and 6 b Street. Having Main Street as an access route to a performing arts center would be like a mini4th of July event throughout all the scheduled venues. What would happen to the tranquility and ambiance between York Town and 6`h Street? Would a crossing guard be able to ensure safety for those trying to cross the street and enjoy the neighborhood and park,or would there even be a neighborhood and park that would still be enjoyable? Without the 525 Main Street park,many people would lose the quality of life that it affords and,I believe,the City would lose even more by jeopardizing the balance that has made us an attractive and amazingly unique City. Also, I believe that the City's Specific Plan,particularly in 4.2.1.2,4.2.1.3,and 4.2.1.7,points out the potential for extreme negative consequences to 525 Main Street's surrounding residences and residents. S' cerely, Roger tad Marilyn Smit c: Mr.Fred Wilson,City Administrator Mr.Paul Emery,Deputy City Administrator Mr.Robert Hall Deputy City Administrator Ms.Elizabeth Shier-Burnett,Chairperson,Planning Commission Ms.Blair Farley,Vice-Chair,Planning Commission Planning Commissioners Delgleize,Livengood Scandura,and Speaker Roger and Marilyn Smith 501 Pecan Avenue, Huntington Beach,CA 92648/714-969-5 125 /rocket uy99gsocal.rr.com -----Original Message From: Marilyn Smith To: CITY COUNCIL ; Bohr, Keith Cc:Wilson, Fred Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: Thank you for your response— Re: Very Concerned About the Possibility of an Arts Center at 525 Main Street Dear Mayor Bohr, Thank you for your prompt response to our email. We appreciate your stating that you will keep our concerns in mind. We are hopeful that you will not only keep our concerns in mind, but that you will find that our concerns are significant and shared by many of your constituents. None of us see our concerns as merely about a"green patch" in our neighborhood_ The DSP proposal would mean losing a primary recreation area for people and pets; suffering the effects of demolition, construction, new and changed streets, and having our home addresses changed. To a community who loves their residential neighborhood, this proposal is about a loss of green and open views, drastic increases in traffic, looking at more parking structures, looking at more multi-storied buildings, suffering negative consequences of deliveries and delivery vehicles, dealing with lighting and noise that is incompatible with residential living, and so much more. The proposed DSP would impose negative impacts on the quality,of life of many residents and visitors, and threaten their safety as well . (How would the crossing guard at the School Crossing on Main Street deal with the increased traffic and haw safe would it be for children and others to cross at that crossing? Or would the Crossing Guard be one more thing that the City would need to get rid of to"expand/improve a cultural node"?) This DSP would equate to a lack of appropriate respect for existing residences and residents. It would mean drastic increases in traffic and extreme deterioration of the safety, ambiance, and historical charm_ Turning 525 Main Street into a"cultural node"would mean destroying what Huntington Beach residents and visitors consider to be a park. Not calling this area a"park" reminds me of the saying that, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck." 525 Main Street does look like a park, does function as a park, is designated on the City's posted sign as a park, and has park regulations listed for park occupants to follow while enjoying activities typically enjoyed at a park(hard to refer to this area as a "green patch). Please accept our communication as heartfelt and enthusiastic and our hopeful attempt at stressing the importance of our concerns. We do believe that we want what is really best for the City of Huntington Beach. There are other sites that could be used, would have better access routes, and would cause less damage to existing neighborhoods, residences and residents. Thanks again, Mayor Bohr. We look forward to opportunities to join you in finding the best way to honor these significant concerns. Sincerely, Roger and Marilyn Smith c: Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator Mr.Paul Emery,Deputy City Administrator Mr.Robert Hall Deputy City Administrator Ms.Elizabeth Shier-Burnett,Chairperson,Planning Commission Ms.Blair Farley,Vice-Chair,Planning Commission Planning Commissioners Delgleize,Livengood,Scandura,and Speaker ----Original Message----- From Bohr, keitf Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:47 AM To: Smalewitz, Stanley; Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb; Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: FW: Draft EIR for Downtown Plan FYI -----Original Message----- From: lgeisse@aol.com [mailto:lgeisse@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:00 PM To: Fritzal, Kellee; richardson.gray@yahoo.com Subject: Draft EIR for Downtown Plan Please add these comments to the Draft EIR for the Downtown Plan. Sirs: I am not in favor of losing parkland for any project, especially when other, better, options exist. The downtown park should not be developed. The park will always be a place of respite and retreat in the midst of the huge project you desire. It need: to stay. As President of the Parks Legal Defense Fund, we will support the defense of this park against any attempt to develop it. Thank you. - Larry Geisse, M.D. (resident of Huntington Beach) 1 January 22, 2009 In regards to: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan No 5 Section 3.3.1.20 City of Huntington Beach Economic Development Attn: Nova 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Nova: It has come to our attention, at this late hour, that the City of Huntington Beach, and in particular the Huntington Beach Police Department, wishes to amend the Downtown Specific Plan No 5 Section 3.3.1.20. As Hurricanes has been a business member of our downtown community since 1992 we have seen many changes over the years with our continued growth and an influx of many new businesses. Certain issues that are included in the revised plan 3.3.1.20 offered some great concern. To place a blanket standard across the board because of some businesses in the area does not seem, basically, very patriotic. The kitchen being open during all hours is one of our concerns. As we are not in a major city such as Los Angeles or San Francisco, people do not tend to eat after 9:00pm. Our current kitchen hours are from 11:00am to 11:00pm and we average 20 covers from 9:00pm to 11:00pm on most off nights and a few more on the weekend. To spend labor dollars that our not necessary is not good for businesses that are already struggling in a bad economy. However, understanding the need to combat customers becoming over intoxicated and becoming a problem, Hurricane's has, for the last year, taken upon itself that on Fridays and Saturdays and major holidays to offer a Free food product, i.e. tacos, brats etc from 12:00am to 1:00am. This has been successful to our customers and easy on our labor as we can have a bus boy handle the buffet product. This may be a better alternative to keeping a kitchen fully staffed and open during all hours of the day. As long as there is a food product available for customers should be the minimum standard, not a fully staffed kitchen. HURRICANES BAR & GRILL 200 MAIN STREET SUITE 201 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 —2— January 23,2009 Restaurant Alcohol Permit Fee and Security Fee. Are these fees just required by the merchants in the downtown business district or does this apply to any restaurant doing business in the City of Huntington Beach? As merchants, we are already burden with many annual fees, high rents, licenses, etc. these fees seem a bit discriminatory to apply to just businesses in the downtown area. If this was to be applied City wide, we could understand, but do not feel that these are fair in a democracy such as ours. Also the time restraints do not comply with the State of California Alcohol Beverage Control which states that alcohol can be served between the hours of 6:00am and 2:00am. At Hurricanes, we are opened from 11:00am to 2:00am with a "last call" at 1:25am daily. This gives our customers ample time to finish there drinks, close out there tabs, and get a cab. We understand there are some businesses on the street that choose to get that last drink sale to the very last minute. Again it is not fair to penalize an entire community for the shortcomings a few bad apples. Again, if this is a city wide ordinance we could understand but not just a downtown issue. By limiting alcohol sales to 1:00am means that we would have to do a "last call" at 12:30am to ensure that all customers are closed out and vacated at the appropriate time. This is a significant income loss over the span of a year when you take into consideration major holidays. If customers can't get what they want they will choose another city to do business in. Some of us remember the 1990's when we use to close the businesses on the 4t" of July. Within a few short years we had no business on that day and it took many years to get it back. In 1992, I believe there were around 19 liquor licenses' in the downtown area; I believe we now have something like 38. If the city was concerned about problems, why does it continue to offer permits to these types of establishments and then are upset when they do business. That would be a better place to start. Put a limit on permits in the downtown community, not penalize businesses that have invested years and millions of dollars establishing there businesses and run good operations. In the past we use to have 1st block slow down consumption around 1:15am, 2nd block was 1:30am and 3rd block was around 1:45am. This allowed a nice flow and release on the street so that not all businesses were dumping 100's of people on the street at one time. It worked in the past why can't we discuss this with the merchants and get everyone to agree to a "last call" policy. —3— January 23,2009 All other conditions, while a bit extreme, should be acceptable for those businesses operating well run operations. We understand why the Huntington Beach Police are attempting to rectify the problems that have arisen over the past few years in our fine community. We offer our continued support and hope that these few changes can be amended to this program. Sincerely, �" Z"e& General Manager v, JAN 2 3 2009 DEPARTMENTCIF 1��Momtw I)OW Olmli MN. 0 ?I M P k) L L I 4� ur AbNo 6--- L) fY) j- e,,vioraVf L� &PO 60 7 0 n tl 5vlZfl P rou��h� gvf�j&,-- Ptff 1 0 I'V5 Ltx�kvoje T�QPT- �*; p,-'rFCft /V 3; � � 60ff-IvALO' M k tel& "E4�( �Xlrt' -)-o ti, �f Vl Mfia4�X �tc- sopl�- C/l,Tl wp") W W Y P2hc l ,j q- gv qj �uX,pj 0 k AuS" ov -rN.S LoCk-n oW w6u� 8g,-/,T li3mgLgl &)T) �-16js crrl fty�� )LI, -3 lift Loaen ox) 7:�m curc- P�w �fuml is Cmmk.C)K Rto6,�c )63 PA �) 5 COA/Arq M'� Af / 'N P64, 15 AW, P,� PQJ POPVI� -fb �4AerMuP r( StUAD P-61' u I lc-t/ Nzw ri zoo 6:� (P6A KefwW1,P 1-5 --IIV, v /'A/RL�, LtX*-f7UOj hS Mf��WO/ �Mt A AL�v '1W I oclkV UP CL_X,�5 S1V1,577VA170P '-)AY*gk W ll-V 3) 4,kC 1L-)L,7-r hMS 5PW�� E I W'_ PRMt SAIJb5 W)-(, 7 -TVUJP V I I Y,-114t 66bAp IT Pka'logrt MPCM 6twavtpr HlWt OPPr#) 72AY5 op c;'V_0t Pl*r6 , LV'� C,01,714b h`057- AIJ zVa,6�3*t- gwla� MA 5 tT COVL> 8�- �� pk61Fl (_1 Yq\ Downtown Specific Plan Amendment Comments from Mike Adams and Dick Harlow Draft Review 2/9/2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Purpose & Intent • "to ensure that planning regulations and guidelines provide direction with flexibility to accommodate both current and future development opportunities " The plan fails to provide a more flexible direction and introduces a greater amount of discretionary approvals. • "customizing the planning process and land use regulation" This intent could be realized if upon adoption of the Plan all future project proposals consistent with the Specific Plan could be permitted without further discretionary approval and environmental review. • "to promote orderly and viable development that meets the community's vision for the future..." The Plan does not present the community's vision, what can the downtown look like, what activities will be included and how is it implemented over what time frame? 1.3.1 Specific Plan (Consolidated Document) • "The Specific Plan eliminates the Downtown Parking Master Plan by combining the documents." While this is a positive approach, the draft Plan does not present a Parking Master Plan. The following parking questions need to be addressed up front. o Based on the current level of activity downtown the parking demand is spaces. o The current parking supply comprised of on-street and off-street public and private parking is spaces. o The current surplus of parking (_spaces) will allow for sq. ft. of additional development. o In order to achieve the invisioned potential development for the downtown additional parking spaces will be necessary, based on the proposed parking standards. o The proposed parking standards are based on the following assumptions and theories: o The additional necessary parking spaces can be provided at the following locations: 1.4.1 Existing Conditions • There needs to be a greater recognition of the current improvements including the entitled development projects. 1.4.2 General Plan • How will the General Plan be amended to facilitate the amended Specific Plan? j 1.4.3 Existing Issues • Of the three items listed only parking is a true concern or issue. "the lack of pedestrian orientation of some locations, and the desire to expand development past the first three clocks of Main Street are salient concerns" These may be goals which could be implemented with Specific development standards but they are not major issues like, vehicular circulation, variety of commercial uses, expanded office and residential opportunities and public amenities. 1.4.3.1-1.4.3.7 • The issues identified in the above sections are only statements and should be readdressed as a goal or objective, or omitted. 1.5 Specific Plan Intent • Only two goals are identified (Vision/Land Use/Tourism), this seems like a very narrow focus. The goals should be a guideline to implement the issues identified in Section 1.4.3 1.5.1.1 Vision and Land Use • "Establish the Vision and create a land use plan ...." The Plan uses vague words and crude graphics to show the vision only the proposed cultural center is represented with an image. The proper mix of land uses for the downtown is not identified nor are any incentives proposed to attract specific uses. 1.5.1.1 Tourism • "Create an environment that promotes tourism..." Clear objectives and policies are not identified to implement the goal 1.5.2 Objectives and Policies • The objectives and policies are poorly phrased and do not-relate to the two identified goals. • What constitutes a "well balanced" mix of land uses? • Why limit alcohol related uses as opposed to greater regulations? • What prior land use assumptions were never realized and where are the new assumptions identified. • Where is the plan identifying future public parking opportunities? • "working closely with the Coastal Commission and area stakeholders" are nice statements however, the phrase is not a policy to implement a healthy mix of land uses. • The issue to open or close Main Street to vehicular traffic should be part of a circulation goal or objective, not expressed as policy to implement future land uses. • How do the objective and policies related to architectural design implement the two goals identified? • Objective 3 should simply state to "ensure that adequate parking is available" the remaining sentence does not implement the identified goals. • The policy shown under objective 1 "to identify locations where public parking should be provided..." should be moved to objective 3. • Consider all available options for additional parking... is weak and should be replaced with the previous policy statement. 1.5.3 Vision • The link between the downtown and the ocean already exists. How will the Specific Plan further address this other than through pedestrian movement along Main Street? The "Vision" section should be placed before the implementing objectives and policies. Greater discussion needs to be conducted on the desires and benefits of closing Main Street to vehicular traffic and encouraging a greater emphasis on pedestrian circulation. • A concept design plan should be drawn for the Fifth Street right-of-way. Improvements have already been implemented in all three blocks, how will those improvements be modified? • What revised development and parking standards are proposed for the fifth street "primary corridor"? • The cultural center concept can be achieved without the need to reopen 6th Street. The current alignment of 6th Street to Main Street is a better route to move vehicular traffic around the downtown area. The curved portion of 6th Street can be removed to facilitate additional subterranean parking and reconstructed as an overcrossing with limited parking, similar to 5th Street in the Strand project. • The "elements central to the vision for downtown" should be rephrased as objectives and policies and not repeated. 1.6 Downtown Design Concepts • This entire section should be rephrased into goals, objectives and policies or omitted. Unless specific elements are proposed to be uniquely implemented in the Downtown area differently than the City as a whole, this section does not belong in the Plan. Chapter 2 - Administration • This section provides the opportunity to streamline the project approval process as highlighted in section 1.1. All projects up to a specific size (50,000 sq. ft.) should be permitted without any discretionary review, if the proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines. Only projects proposing unique activities, design concepts or over an established size should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Special Permits should be able to address all development standards up to a specific percentage of deviation (20%). • Special Permits should be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and only by the Planning Commission if the overall project size warrants a Conditional use Permit. • Variances should only be necessary if the required deviation is beyond the scope of a Special Permit. • Temporary use permit should be acted upon by the Director. • Design Review Board action should only be necessary with a Conditional Use Permit. • The findings for a Special Permit should be edited to a smaller list, and only require one of the findings for approval. • The nonconforming use section needs further review and discussion. As outlined the provisions will discourage private improvements to nonconforming activities. 2.7 Definitions • Only identify words or phrases unique to the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan Chapter 3 - Land Uses and Development Standards 3.2.1 Design Guidelines • "All development shall comply with the spirit and intent..." This statement seems contrary to the previously expressed desire to obtain unique architectural design. The Design Guidelines reflect a uniformity and common style, which discourages a continuation of the eclectic pattern of design and development that create the unique aspects of'the downtown area. 3.2.2 Sustainable Development • "All development projects shall contain sustainable features" The above statement needs to be properly defined and explained. Sustainable policies should be addressed City wide and are not unique to the downtown. 3.2.4 Encroachments • The Plan should allow for architectural projection over sidewalks and plazas, subject to adequate vertical clearance. In addition, upper story and subterranean connection linking various blocks should be permitted. These encroachments currently exist and have been approvable in the past. 3.2.5 Street Vacations • This section does not propose anything unique for the Downtown and therefore should be omitted. Again, the concept for removing vehicle traffic from Main Street is raised. The Main Street issue should be addressed in the Circulation section. The Main Street closure should be addressed as an objective in a yet to be developed circulation goal or dropped from further discussion. 3.2.6 Alleys • Only the points which address zoning should be included. Repeating information which is City policy or procedure along with Public Works construction standards should be eliminated. • Any new pavement patterns or materials proposed should be highlighted in the Public Facilities section. A greater degree of discussion concerning the proposed design, materials and costs needs to occur before this recommendation is adopted. 3.2.8 Accessory Structures • "...such structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height nor be closer than10 feet to any other structure ..." This is an old standard no longer applicable to the downtown area and can only serve to confuse , impede or prevent development. 3.2.9 Building Separation • There is not a need for this provision 3.2.10 Subterranean Development • The building code definition of a semi-subterranean structure should be used, which is not greater than one-half of the floor to ceiling height, not 42" • Remove the shoring and raker discussion, these are not zoning issue and right-of-way encroachment was previously addressed. 3.2.11 Landscaping • The landscaping provisions should reflect an urban type design theme, the arbitrary minimum amount of landscaping will conflict with outdoor dining, pedestrian peseo development and private plaza areas. • The landscaping pattern should be part of the streetscape section, with setback and landscape standards consistent for the entire street. The proposed detailed standards for parking lot setbacks should be removed. • "...special sub-surface construction may be required." If this is referring to root barriers or other sidewalk protection devices just say so, and what will determine this need, the type of landscape materials specified? 3.2.12.1 Fences and Walls • "In the front yard fences and walls may not exceed 42 inches in height." Add in the front yard setback. • Is the articulation every 10-12 feet truly necessary for interior side property lines? • Why are smooth block walls prohibited? This is still an economical solution for interior side property lines. 3.2.13 Mixed-Use Projects • There should not be the need for separate access to the commercial and residential uses. Plaza Almaria has a shared front lobby and elevator for both office and residential activities. • If the parking is intended to be shared for residential, visitor, commercial and office tenants, why is there a need for "the spaces allocated for each use to be clearly marked"? • Access to common residential open space from the commercial portion of the project is not a problem. If you are trying to say, the open space is for the exclusive use of the residents, than so state. • The location and access to loading and trash areas in the downtown will most likely be from an alleyway. Locating these activities away from residential units may not be possible. • More specific information is necessary to understand the phrase "state of the art ventilization systems"' 3.2.14 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size • Why mention the Affordable Housing section, there is no reference to minimum unit size. 3.2.15 Open Space • Open Space may be a combination or private and common areas. The minimum amount should be 60 square feet per bedroom. • A minimum of 75% of the units shall be required to have private open space is unnecessary. An urban environment adjacent to the beach should provide sufficient justification for the elimination of the requirement for private open space. • Private open space shall be for the exclusive use of one unit, however if access is shared with other tenants that should be allowed. For example a series of rooftop courts or patios with a shared stairwell and access route. • Common Open Space should allow for rooftop solutions. • "Common Open Space ... shall be designed so that no dimension is less than 10 feet." should be rephrased to state a minimum dimension of 10 feet. • "Shall be open to the sky" should be modified to allow shade structures or building overhangs 50-75% open should be sufficient in the downtown. • The restrictive covenant provision discussion should be omitted. All multi- family projects will be subject to the creation of CC&R reviewable by the City, the State Department of Real Estate and recorded with the county. 3.2.18 Refuse Areas • The requirement that the refuse facility be located within 200 feet of each residential unit, seem arbitrary, eliminate the minimum dimension. • A shared refuse system for both residential and commercial can work, don't preclude the option. • Items 7, 8&9 are not zoning issues and should be eliminated from this section. 3.2.19 Affordable Housing • Only include the reference to the City's Zoning Code. The overall approach to Affordable Housing is currently being reviewed and may result in changes to the Zoning Code. The discussion of a different affordable percentage for Redevelopment areas should be omitted. 3.2.20 Residential Buffers • The proposed change in permitted uses will now allow for residential activity anywhere downtown. Therefore, the entire discussion of residential buffers should be redrafted as a Design Guideline. As a regulation, the items listed are either too restrictive or too vague. Excessive upper story setbacks on all sides and minimum setbacks for service and trash areas are arbitrary and excessive. The Downtown area is very limited in parcel and project sizes; therefore, a greater amount of individual review and customized modifications will be necessary, minimum setback standards will simply artificially constrain development. 3.2.21 Historic Properties • The historically significant structures should be listed and the necessary process outlined. The illusion of discretionary approval should not be implied for either the Historic Resources Board or the Design Review Board. • If a historically significant structure is proposed for demolition or significant change, will the Director or Zoning Administrator be able to approve the various Entitlements or will all historic decisions be referred to the Planning Commission? 3.2.22 Signs • The entire sign section does not allow for innovative signage materials, sizes or design. The standards outlined are not unique to the Downtown and will make many of the existing signage non-conforming. This entire section should be redrafted to encourage a more creative approach and break away from the uniform standards found throughout the city. 3.2.24 Outdoor Dining • The outdoor dining along PCH (within District 1) and Main Street (between PCH and Orange) should be identified on the proposed streetscape plans. The streetscape landscaping should be modified in response to the proposed requirement of a minimum 10-foot clear passage area and the potential outdoor dining area. • Issue #3 should be eliminated, issue #4 can express the same thing by modifying the clear passage requirement to six feet. • Issue #5 should be eliminated once the streetscape plan is approved, staff should not have the discretion to widen the passageway. Any future concerns could be addressed through the right-of-way License Agreement. • Private sidewalk areas should be allowed to further reduce the necessary passageway to five feet, due to the limited pedestrian traffic. A permanent cordon should not be required. • Issue #7 should be omitted, the visibility concerns for vehicular traffic is already addressed with the four way stop signs at all intersections. • Design standards for the 36" barrier proposed for outdoor dining with alcohol should be reworked to allow a greater variety of solutions. • Issue #10 omit the quality of outdoor furniture discussion. • Issue #11 should be rephrased to say, "no seating is allowed for kiosk food sales", instead of may not provide outdoor dining. 3.2.24.2 Operating Requirements • Issue #1 omit as worded this only states the obvious. • The entire section should be reworded to eliminate redundancy and better communicate the intent. • The finding for the License Agreement should be placed directly under the License Agreement discussion. • Termination of a License Agreement should not nullify the C.U.P. Outdoor Dining will generally be an extension of a restaurant, both approved with a single C.U.P. • The License Agreement and Maintenance Agreement should be combined. • The detailed repeat of the already approved outdoor dining procedures is not necessary and can be accomplished by reference. 3.2.24.3 Parking • The entire section needs to be reworded if the intent is to reflect the regulations currently in effect. 3.2.24.4 Mushroom Heaters • Omit entire discussion not a zoning issue. The Building and Fire Departments can prepare a hand out enforcement should not be a Planning Department function. 3.2.24.5 Permitting • The permitting procedures for outdoor dining should be placed in the document before any of the design and operating regulations. • Outdoor dining without alcohol should require no discretionary approval providing the outlined standards are adhered to. • Outdoor dinging with alcohol sales should be subject to a C.U.P. to the Zoning Administrator. • All other issues identified should be omitted. 3.2.25 Outdoor Display and Sales ® The regulations outlined reflect the City as a whole, the downtown is unique and should be allowed greater freedoms. The limitation on number of days per years, the size of the sales area and type of merchandise sold should be omitted. Provided adequate pedestrian passageways is available, all other identified issues should be omitted. 3.2.26 Parking • Simply state the parking stall sizes, standards and handicap requirements. • The Non-residential Uses Parking requirement chart should reflect a need for the same requirement in District 1, 2, and 3 the remaining Districts (with the exception of District 6 the Pier) do not allow non-residential uses. Therefore omit the line " All other Districts" ® Restaurant parking requirements are the same as elsewhere in the City. This requirement should be reduced to 8 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. (20% reduction) in recognition of the shared parking concept. In addition the restaurant busy time is generally different from office and retail uses. • Restaurants with 12 seats or less should be required the same parking as retail uses 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. • The outdoor dining parking requirements should be added to the chart. • Hotel/Motel parking requirements should be the same in all Districts, 1.1 spaces/room plus the added requirements identified. • Bed and Breakfast parking requirements should be the same in all Districts, 1 space/room plus 1 guest and manager space. • Cultural Facilities parking requirements should be the same as retail due primarily to the different time of day demand. These uses should benefit from a shared parking approach. • Assembly Uses should be omitted. If a specific project is proposing a unique activity, a special parking study should be conducted. • The Planning Commission should only have the discretionary ability to conditionally require additional parking upon review of an independent parking analysis for the proposal. • Residential uses parking should be expanded to allow tandem parking, front to back and stacked with a mechanical hoist system. • In residential uses, properly designed carports should be considered "enclosed". • Alley access may require a 5' setback in order to assure a 25' turning radius. • The additional parking requirement for single family units greater than 3 bedrooms simply needs to say "the additional required parking must be located on-site". All additional wording should be omitted. • Multi-family residential should be the same in all Districts, with the proposed changes : 0 2 or more bedrooms should require 2 spaces' omit the 3 or more provisions. o Guest parking throughout the downtown should be .25 parking spaces per unit, based on the availability of on street and off street public parking. • Bicycle parking should not be required for commercial development but should be allowed as an alternative. Bicycle parking should be provided in public areas, on street, in plazas or within the parking structures. • Bicycle parking for residential projects should only be required for multi- family developments and the same in all Districts, 1 space per 4 units. 3.2.26.5 Coastal Zone Design Standard • Amend chapter 231 of the Zoning Code to remove this provision. The previously outlined parking standards should be consistent in or out of the Coastal Zone. 3.2.26.6 Tandem Parking • Tandem parking in commercial development is permitted subject to review of a parking management plan and not arbitrarily limited to 40% of the spaces. • Tandem parking in residential projects should be permitted provided the tandem parking spaces are assigned to individual units. 3.2.26.8 Other Parking Considerations • This provision should be limited to the following: o Require a Parking Management Plan for review of a valet parking proposal, or projects greater than 50,000 sq. ft. o All other provisions should be omitted. 3.2.26.9 Parking Structures • The design concerns for a parking structure should be the same as any building in the downtown. The setback and landscape provisions should be established with the individual streetscape concept and should not be treated differently. The design provisions outlined are more appropriate for conventional parking structures found elsewhere in the City, they propose unnecessary regulations. Omit all design issues identified. Any proposed parking structure in the future will likely be a public facility and therefore subject to greater City review. Any private parking facilities proposed will be in conjunction with a development project which will control the overall design. 3.2.26.10 District 1 Special Standards • Commercial parking within District 1 should be allowed to use any public parking available. On-site parking should be permitted but not required. • Future projects may only be permittable if there is sufficient parking available (a combination of public and private). 3.2.28 Utilities 3.2.29 Water Quality 3.2.30 Methane Mitigation 3.2.31 Fire Prevention • All of the above provisions are unrelated to Zoning and should be omitted. Unless all items related to obtaining a building permit are identified, why list a select few? 3.3 District Provisions 3.3.1.1 Purpose (District 1) • This District is established as the Downtown core so the purpose should not be re-established. The purpose should be to expand the commercial core area beyond Main Street and along PCH. • Large amounts of ground level open space are encouraged at the north end of Main Street in the District not the District as a whole. • How will "large amounts" of ground level open space: further promote a pedestrian environment and provide additional view opportunities? 3.3.1.3 Permitted uses • New construction alone should not require the need for a Conditional Use Permit, only specific types of development should require discretionary approval. • The Permitted use charts should be adjusted (see attached recommendations). 3.3.1.5 Minimum Parcel Size • Ok 3.3.1.6 Maximum Site Coverage • Ok 3.3.1.7 Maximum Density • Ok, but not achievable without major consolidation of parcels.. 3.3.1.8 Building Height • Ok, but need to add language to allow for rooftop mechanical screening, elevator or rooftop access housings and roofline variation. Without some flexibility, all roofs will be flat and a boring skyline will result. 3.3.1.9 Upper Story Setback • Setting back the 4th and 5th floor can be accomplished architecturally without the minimum average 10' setback requirement. 3.3.1.10 Front yard Setback • All setbacks should be established to implement the various desired streetscapes. • Main Street shall have a 0'-5' (max) setback. If additional dedication is required for Main Street to implement the streetscape concept than require dedication at time of development. • A reduction of the front setback requirement (15' - 10' avg.) for residential only parcels will result in new developments inconsistent with relatively recent developments. • The need for additional right-of-way dedication of 5 feet along PCH from 1st to 6th Street for expanded sidewalks seems a bit late. New projects currently front PCH from 6th to 2"d Street on the inland side. Additional sidewalk area can be achieved by adopting a streetscape plan for PCH and requiring that new or expanded improvements provide an adequate setback. The discussion of dedication does not belong in a setback requirement. The dedication is also unclear as to which side of PCH needs the right-of-way. Will the additional right-of-way be used for widening PCH? • No minimum setback for parking lots unless the proposed streetscapes design requires a specific dimension. 3.3.1.11 Side Yard Setback • Same comment the exterior side setbacks should be determined by the streetscape design of the adjacent street. • Residential only projects should only require a 5 foot, interior side setback (no aggregate calculation), with an exception for parcels less than 50 feet in width where the setback can be 3 feet. • Same comment for parking lot setbacks as before, the proposed streetscape design should determine the setback. 3.3.1.12 Corner Setback • Ok, for the main building, however, allowances should be permitted for architectural projections and outdoor activities, subject to vehicle visibility concerns. 3.3.1.13 Rear Setback • Ok 3.3.1.14 Public Open Space • Only projects over a minimum size of 20,000 sq, ft, (commercial) should require a public open space provision. • The discussion of residential open space should be omitted, it is addressed in section 3.2.15. • Projects with less than 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial activity in the ground level shall pay an in-lieu fee for public open space. 0 All the remaining issues in this section #4 through #11 should be omitted. 3.3.1..15 Storefront • This entire section should be a Design Guideline not a regulation. Evan as a design guideline it encourages uniformity, which will prohibit an eclectic and creative approach to design development. 3.3.1.16 Public Art • Public Art should be included in the streetscape plans with all projects contributing through an in-lieu fee. Encouraging individual solutions may be counter productive to an overall downtown design theme. • The three-step approval process, Design Review Board, Planning Director and Cultural Services staff seem awkward. Development of an overall public improvements Master Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council, will allow for a better implementation process. 3.3.1.17 Paseos • Paseos can provide a good means of connecting activities to non- vehicular traffic. However, they need to serve a connecting purpose, simply requiring one every 250 feet may not be practical. • All paseo design issues should be part of the Design Guidelines and omitted from the regulations 3.3.1.18 Loading and Service Areas • Projects of various sizes may require dedicated loading areas. The project Entitlement review should determine the appropriate number and locations, the identified amount seems arbitrary. 3.3.1.19 Refuse Enclosures • Ok 3.3.1.20 Restaurant Alcohol Permit • This entire sections should be omitted it goes way beyond Zoning and is counter productive to the intensions of the Plan. It proposes new standards and procedures which are only reflective of the problems of the past, they are not intended to encourage new economic development. This item needs a greater amount of discussion outside of the Specific Plan and the new procedures outlined would require a change to the municipal code. 3.3.1.21 Entertainment Permit • Same comment as above this entire discussion should be omitted from the Specific Plan. The detailed issues should be addressed on a project- by-project basis. With the detail regulations outlines there should not be the need for any discretionary review. The way the proposed regulations are drafted it will not encourage new economic development. 3.3.1.22 Cultural Arts Overlay • Good concept • The proposal to close 6th Street and realign to intersect Main Street at Acacia Avenue should be addressed as part of the circulation plan. Downtown Circulation is better served with 6th Street in its current alignment. If the goal is simply to assemble a larger parcel for the cultural complex, than removal of 6th Street for subterranean parking and reconstruction of 6th Street over the top with a smaller street section, will accomplish the same thing. • The detailed development standards may only serve to limit the sites potential. Any development of the site will most likely be a public project, therefore the concerns anticipated with the suggested design standards could be accomplished with statements of intent and not potentially limiting dimensions and standards. A rewrite of this section is suggested or this will become the focal point for the entire discussion of the amended Specific Plan through the public hearing process. 3.3.1.1 Purpose (District 2) • The purpose is also to implement the entitled commercial portions of the Pacific City Master Plan. • An image of the adopted plan should be inserted in the graphics. • Any alteration to the Plan will require an amendment to the approved Entitlement and should be consistent with that approval, and the adopted Development Agreement. 3.3.2.4 Development Standards • All development standards should be omitted. Future development of the site should be consistent with the approved plan, any proposed alterations should be reviewed for compatibility on a form planning basis consistent with the standards reflected in the adopted plan. 3.3.2.15 Fractional Ownership Hotel • This issue should be omitted from the Specific Plan, the pertinent provisions have been addressed in the project Development Agreement. • The use is simply a hotel for zoning purposes. How the hotel is financed or how the ownership is structured is not a zoning function. 3.3.3.1 Purpose (District 3) • The purpose is to implement the entitled commercial portion of the Waterfront Master Plan. • An image of the adopted plan should be inserted in the graphics. • Any alteration to the plan will require an amendment to the approved Entitlement and should be consistent with that approval and the adopted Development Agreement. 3.3.3.3 Development Standard • All development standards should be redrafted to reflect the standards adopted with the existing project Entitlement. Future development scale or appropriateness should be determined on the proposals compatibility with the built surroundings. 3.3.3.15 Condominium Hotel • Omit entire section ® All the appropriate concerns have been addressed in the existing Development Agreement. 3.3.4.1 Purpose (District 4) • Consider expanding the District to include both sides of 2"d Street and 1 St Street between Walnut and Orange; and the inland side of Lake Street, between Orange and Acacia; which has experienced a great deal of new residential development over the past few years. The established pattern of exclusively residential development should be encouraged to continue. 1 st, 2"d, and Lake Streets are only adjacent to the downtown and it is not appropriate for the same level of development intensity to be permitted in these areas. 3.3.4.4 Development Standards • Maximum Building Height is not identified (in the chart) however a continuation of the density calculation is. • Upper story setback should not be mandated at a 10-foot average. The setback can be achieved with a number of techniques at various dimensions. A greater amount of flexibility should be encouraged to avoid a continuation of the same architectural solution. • Exterior side setbacks should be reduced to a maximum of 10 feet; omit the complicated calculation. 3.3.4.15 Street Frontage • The statement that all new single-family homes are required to have a front porch should be omitted. The inclusion of a front porch could be encouraged in the Design Guidelines. • The second issue addressing alley access to garages does not belong in this section and should be omitted. The policy is stated elsewhere. 3.3.5.1 Purpose (District 5) • To implement the adopted plans the graphics should be adjusted to include the approved Entitlement plans for both the Waterfront project and Pacific City. 3.3.5.3 Permitted uses • The public transportation center should be omitted. The opportunity for including a transportation center in the Pacific City project has passed. A Transportation Center is now more appropriate in District 1 or 7. 3.3.5.4 Development Standards • The development standards need to reflect the two entitled projects and the adopted Development Agreements. Future modification to these approved plans need to be anticipated. The Waterfront project will need to address remodeling, maintenance and potential expansion, with individual additions. The Pacific City project may need to change the project scope entirely. In the later case why limit the density to 30du/ac when the downtown core is proposing 60du/ac. 3.3.5.14 Corridor Dedication • This issue was addressed with the Development Agreement and can be omitted from the Plan 3.3.5.15 Conservation Overlay • All outlined regulations can be omitted, these provisions are part of the Development Agreement. 3.3.6.1 Purpose (District 6) • The approved building layouts should be added to the graphics. 3.3.7.1 Purpose (District 7) • To preserve, protect and enhance the beach area. 3.3.7.3 Permitted use • This is the most logical location for a future transportation center, is the wording Public transit facilities the same? 3.3.7.9 Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height should be consistent with District 6, which allows 25 feet and 2 stories. Chapter 4 - Design Guideline • The Design Guidelines section should only be an appendix to the Plan. The intent is for this chapter to serve as suggestions, recommendations and guidelines; however by including them in the Plan the guidelines become interpreted as mandatory regulations. • This chapter reads like a lecture on design with only a hand full of local examples. Many of the issues are vague and presented in an awkward fashion. • The concept of sustainable development, while a worthy objective, should be part of a much larger City wide discussion and not presented in a piece meal fashion within a section intended to address aesthetics. • Many of the images are in conflict with text in the regulations section. In addition, various items discussed are not pertinent to downtown Huntington Beach. • The Design Guidelines ad hoc committee should be reassembled to review the recommended amendments to the Guidelines and report back to City Council. Chapter 5 - Circulation and Parking Proposed Improvements include: • "wider sidewalks with ADA paths of travel from street to building entrance." Which sidewalks? If buildings are zero front setback why ADA path of travel? • "realignment of selected roadways" Which ones and how wide? • "improvements to the bicycle and transit networks" Describe the existing networks and how they will be improved. • "increasing the parking supply with creative and traditional approaches" Describe the new approaches. • "managing parking demand" What does this mean? • "The improvements should make it easier for residents, employees and visitors to bicycle, walk, and utilize transit..." Is the above statement a goal and how will it be implemented. 5.3 Trip Generation • Appendix D (Traffic Study) was not included and the summary in the Plan is weak. • What are the traffic impacts generated by the existing developments? • Will the existing network of streets need to be widened, will on-street parking be eliminated for bike paths or will additional right-of-way dedication be required? • How were the 12,800 new daily vehicle trips determined, what are the mix and amounts of new uses anticipated and over what period of time? 5.3.1 Year 2020 • What is the projected extent of development? 5.3.2 Year 2030 • What is the projected extent of development? Two of the improvements listed will be implemented by 2010 (Pacific View Avenue and 5t" Street reopening). Lake Street increasing to four lanes will likely not occur, what are the impacts assuming no change to Lake Street? 5.3.3 Year 2030 • The only negative traffic impact will be at the intersection of Goldenwest and PCH. Seems unrelated to the proposed additional downtown development. In addition, the mitigation measure of an additional right turn lane seem extreme, however the current R.O.W. exists so why make the statement, when the need warrants to just restripe the street. 5.4 Street Network Improvements • The existing circulation system needs to be analyzed with 4-lane PCH, 2-lane Lake Street and an open Main Street as opposed to the Master Plan designations of wider streets. • PCH is only 6 lanes through a portion of the downtown area, expansion of the roadway and elimination of on-street parking will create a very negative physical barrier between the inland side and ocean side. • Main Street should remain open to through traffic with limited on street parking; closing for special events should be encouraged. • First Street and Lake Street should remain 2 lanes with on-street parking. Any additional widening will simply allow traffic to travel faster through a residential area. 5.4.1 6th Street • The proposed realignment of 6th Street has little to do with circulation and is only proposed to create a larger lot for the Cultural Arts concept. The anticipated vehicular conflicts at Acacia/Main/6th are due to the proposed reopening 6th Street to through traffic, closing Acacia between 6th and 7th will serve little purpose. 0 61h Street should remain 2 lanes and loop the downtown to connect with Main Street in its current configuration. On-street parking should be encouraged to help limit traffic speed. 5.4.2 Walnut Avenue • The proposed realignment of Walnut Avenue between 2°d and 1st needs to be shown with design details. • Continuation of Walnut Avenue at Pacific View Drive is very important and a continuation of the right-of-way design concept adopted for Pacific City should be encouraged. • Orange Avenue needs to be redesigned between 1st Street and 6th Street. On-street parking should be limited to allow for left and right turn pockets along with public transportation turnouts. • PCH has three signalized intersections with the downtown core (1st, Main Hth) which direct vehicular traffic into and around the downtown area. Therefore a circulation network around the downtown core needs to be reinforced. These established access opportunities need to lead conveniently to the various parking opportunities. 5.4.3 Pedestrian Phase Signal • A good concept that should be expanded 5.6 Bicycle Improvements • The class II bikeway should be for continuation beyond Lake Street to Goldenwest Street. In addition, the class II bikeway should extend along 1st Street as a continuation of Lake Street. Huntington and 17th Streets should be designated as class II bikeways. Class III bikeway designations should be considered for 5th Street along with 3rd Street. 5.6.2 Bicycle Parking • Bicycle parking should b e provided in the public parking facilities. Bicycle parking locations should be added to the various streetscape proposals, not the downtown sign program. • Providing bicycle parking in-lieu of vehicles parking should be considered as an incentive to encourage select types of development. 5.8 Transit Improvement "Improvements to the transit system shall be provided to increase pedestrian movement" What does that say? The downtown area needs a public transportation center. This can be accomplished in District 7 near the current bus layover area. 5.8.1 Trolley System • This is a good idea to supplant the regional bus system and may also facilitate remote beach parking facilities that are lightly used in non-peak hours and seasons. 5.9 Parking Conditions • Appendix E has not been provided for review, therefore the adequacy of the existing parking system is not reviewable. 5.10 Parking Improvements • A far greater review of the necessary parking facilities required to facilitate new downtown development needs to be offered. The proposed elimination of on-street parking to facilitate greater pedestrian and bicycle circulation is very short sited. Better management of the existing parking resources are desperately needed. New public parking opportunities need to be identified, the sole solution for additional public parking in conjunction with the development of a cultural center does not adequately address the issue. Other creative solutions must be explored in order for the downtown area to implement the types of development intensities recommended in the Plan. 5.10.1 Valet Parking • The report was not available for review. 5.10.2 Commercial Parking • Need to identify the potential sites, including District W. 5.10.3 Shuttle Service • Good idea, implement a trial program for Tuesday nights. 5.10.4 Public/Private Partnership • Good idea 5.10.5 Employees Parking • Good idea 5.10.6 Temporary Parking Facilities ® This section should be retitled to the above. Temporary facilities could be proposed if the City would develop temporary parking lot standards that reduce the overall construction and permit costs. The map in Figure 5.7 is very misleading. 5.10.7 Automated Parking Structures • The concept should be further explored but may have limited application downtown. The site next to the Art Center is not conveniently located to an area of need and if the Cultural Center is achieved sufficient parking should be available within that complex, across the street. 5.10.8 Beach Parking Structures ® Signage is not the solution to the City's downtown parking problem. Better circulation needs to be proposed. The current signage system is not effective. 5.10.10 Parking Guideline Systems • Good idea Chapter 6 - Streetscapes • The intent is good • The design concept is valid, however the main goal should not primarily focus on creating a pedestrian friendly environment. 6.3 Improvements • The downtown area is not very large therefore, each segment of all streets should be shown in more precise detail in both a plan and cross section format. 6.3.1 Main Street • The intersection of Main and PCH is currently three lanes and should be depicted. • On-street parking should be allowed in select locations. • The travel way width of 28 feet may be too narrow to encourage bicycle travel. Previously bikeways were proposed for street other than Main Street. • Main Street in the first block currently displays plaques for the annual inductees into the Surfing Walk of Fame and handprints for the Surfing Walk of Fame. These efforts should be recognized and a variation of the existing sidewalk theme should be prepared for future expansion. The proposed logo in the street at Main and Walnut should be the Surfing Walk of Fame logo, the concept was previously presented to Council. • Overall, the design concept is fine, however more complete details need to be identified. The various products proposed should simply be received as recommendations, the variety available is far greater that the section few shown. 6.5 Street Trees • The design approach seems fine, each street segment should establish a unique character. 6.6 Public Signs • The current abundance of public signage detracts from the overall appearance of the downtown. An overall public signage set of regulations is encouraged. Chapter 7 - Public Facilities • The information presented should be summarized and moved to the front of the document • A greater detailed discussion for each item should be part of the Environmental Review. Only mitigation measure that result from the Environmental review should become regulator measures or standards in the Specific Plan Chapter 8 - Implementations 8.3 Economic Conditions • The issues are weakly presented and obvious. The good and bad are mixed together with no recommendations. 8.4 Summary of Demand • This discussion should be part of the Plan concept which is weakly outlined in Chapter One 8.6 action Plan • This section is an essential element of the Plan. The chart outlines both broad action concepts and small detailed steps. Greater discussion and prioritization needs to occur at the City Council level. However, as a first step, the information presented should begin the process. 8.7 Potential Funding • While this information is interesting it is unrelated to a zoning document; although it does logically follow a discussion on implementation. The missing discussion is on the potential competition for the limited source and funds; along all City's the existing commitments for the same funding. J. RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane 9208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com HAND DELIVERED December 15,2008 Mayor Keith Bohr City of Huntington Beach Council Member Joe Carchio City Hall Council Member Gil Coerper Fourth Floor Council Member Devin Dwyer 2000 Main Street Council Member Cathy Green Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We have enclosed a copy of a petition from seventy-seven (77) registered voters who reside in Huntington Beach. If you need to examine the original of our petition, please let us know. After such an enthusiastic response in the first few days, we expect that well over one thousand(1,000) Huntington Beach registered voters will sign this petition by the City Council's public hearings on the Downtown Specific Plan Update in the summer of 2009. The petition's substance reads as.follows: "We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. "For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts." After knocking on the doors of the over one hundred ten (110) homes abutting the library this last weekend, I know that our group's consensus is that we will do absolutely whatever is necessary to stop any large new project at the library site. We simply are not going to let a large new building, such as the proposed performing arts or cultural center,get built on the library parcel with its park-like grounds. To avoid a protracted battle,we urge you to endorse the recommendations of your many constituents who have signed this petition,and the countless more who will. Thank you for your support. /J. re�rs, Cl/hardson Gray cc: VAII City of Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners All Residential Abutters of the Main Street Library Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five (45) feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these sign' scant adverse impacts. Signature Print Name q C-) � L/ Print Street Address } Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date 14 Signatu / 1 Print Nape // Print Street Address H tgtoBeach,C ip Code /VA� C � 0 Signature Print Name 91 ToW(� co -u LV Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Coe Date /J Sighatffe Print Name 16"v -d �)Oy Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date (00 Signature Print Name «-2 Q- Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date f ' Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize ese significant adverse impacts. Signature Print Name / ila /44 Print et ddres Huntin n Beach,CA Zip Code Date 1 S�CI 'V Sign Mtme int treet dress Huntingt n Beach,CA Zip Code Date Wr c YA Signature ` `. Print Name V1_2 Print S Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date f � m V— r'1 Signature Print Name Print Street A Huntington Beach,CArode Date dreg �'�jVl� .�s' �gnature Print Name 46 �n C Print St t Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date �1� �V 4-,� apt nature // Print Name 1�1 U �'� � 'Q 2 I Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA tip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing stab ' d residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimi th i ificant adverse impacts. Q� �-�— �� �F�-� Signature Print Name 64 Print Street Address Huntington Breach,CA Zip Code 53te�1 , Sign re Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Zi Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date S gnature Print Name Print,Stree A s Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name 41s 4 3 l 7,//_f 0 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date llazlz �;�- t RPI r e k ) s Signature Print Name J _ Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date _ Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to mini ze these significant adverse impacts. `VAUu �t ucc 1 Signat a Print Name�7 -11,4 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name 51 � n pi-1- H 6 , (, - 9 4� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name / 6iWAJS"wA-reX__�-e_217 B �� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signa a Print Name 413 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code {� ( �Ze�r --y Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature nnfNam Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date t Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. y l3U�'% Signatre Print Name Print Str Addre Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date E�cu t,(� P,__ Signature Print Name 364 q 0 6, rz.,.Iw tl Iz Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date '4� ��Sa(I S acre Print Name (J �t'j, UnVo Print Str6et Address / untin n Beach,CA Zip Code Date I s 1 (hE G yt Sign t re Prid Na e ,aj\A S-�ra s Pri t Street A�Idress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date [ C�� n " Signature Print Name 6 � h Print /Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address / cx/ ' Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date s Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission,and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to imize t se significant adverse impacts. n . b&- Y V Si nature Print N e Print S eet Ad ress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Wate x sioxUre Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,C ip Code Date afu Print Name Print Street Address !' Huntingfon Beach,CA Zip Code Date re Print Name Print S ee Addre s Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Sign ` ri J Name P t Sirect Address Huntifigtdrt Beach, AA Zip Dater' Lau Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date z Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned,are registered voters,residing in Huntington Beach,California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these sig ' ,cant adver impacts. (Je� - Sign a Print Name y 16,222 wl -- 18jV Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip C�� Date Signature Print Name Print trees Addre Huntington Beach,CA Zip o e Date A/u PA. V(P ti 56 0 Pgn4ature riot Name L � Z�Y (ZA4 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip It8de Date LA Signa Print game Print S t Ad ess Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date "54 gn Print Name g2-6,9 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Sign re Print Name oe l C �J v Print Street Address Hu6tington Beach,CA Zip Code Date : Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission,and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. c,�)d o-j , n -e- A . ''u_IbrI,�J) gnatu Print Name It 4 � ILL Print Itreet Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip C cc ) Date Signature �(3; Print Nam Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Pr' Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date S atur Print Name 1 �t.5 2 &UI"-PAN �,,, Z� 1 Print Street Address `(� Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date ` C AM r �muvskq Signature Print Name :j -2, j Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date a Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members.of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. / v ✓i�:. Signature Print Name Print Street ddress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date / 'Signature Pnnt Name T— Print Street Address. Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date a6�r i ie7fy-,_j -Ebert Ll Signa re Print Name f 69Z H13 1 C A , 92 Pri tr Address`\ ` Huntington Beach,CA Zi Code Date ignatu� / Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Q Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Ude Date i 1 Signature PF Print Name i Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission,Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to mini ize these significant adverse impacts. 411e4l,-Z gnature Print �Name/ Print Street Address Huntington$each,CA Zip Code Date Woover Signature Print Name I200 20-0 C PrInk Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date VI'Sjn)G Signature Print Name 2p2G2_ q?9U I 1 6� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date V__L�L� K"CI IA signatuw Print Name n Print S44t Ad r s Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date /A gn re Print Name Print Street ddress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Scl z a n n P, f-b (- Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date s . Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories,and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. ji I -d bi Signature Print Name Print Street Address H on Beach,C Zip Code Date Chem s a c ir„a t d �. Signature Print Name 9a Z V� 1 -�- Print Street Adoress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date zj�'_ �/ 6&(<i /e /Z 6 Bi ure Print Name Print Street Ad s Fr6ntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Add s J Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date 1/- e �P Signature Print Aarnokj -71 �� ��2qa Pri7 Address 7 Huntington Beach,CA Ziip odeC_ t l (/ signa re Print Name 1� IJ Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present sizes and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts center with a permissible height of up to forty-five (45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. A a k a'A4 -'�)4 0 t 4 to iguature V Print Name q& Print Street Address Hu tington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name I-Lut7 CM 3 0Y Prin Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date U U Get ��( Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date !. may/✓ 0/ 6,�/ si afore Print Name Print Stree dr Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date signatur Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date OP /<�A/ '22-� Signature Print Name 17�� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission,Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present sizes and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significan ve imp ts. Signat Print Name Print Street Address Huntington/Beach,CA Zip Code n Q 'Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature // Print Name,r Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date is 2 r f 1 Un- Jem T rT,21 Signature Print rfame �n,�� � �y�gV Pri Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date lgnature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Si re Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date HBT DTSP PC STUDY SESSION COMMENTS 9-01-09 ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO I WAS ASKED TO GIVE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS MY VIEWS ON A FUTURE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN. I SOLICITED IDEAS FROM MY HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS AND HBTOMORROW BOARD MEMBERS. THE VISION WAS FOR A TOURIST AND RESIDENT FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: CLEAN SIDEWALKS; PEDISTRIAN FRIENDLY WITHOUT THE CONGESTION AND UBSTRUCTIONS THAT KEEPS RESIDENTS AWAY; UPSCALE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD ATTRACT RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS; THE REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WHO'S SALES COME PRIMARILY FROM THE SALE OF ALCOHOL; AND OUTDOOR DINING WITHOUT BREATHING IN AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS. WHEN THE DTS PLAN WAS RELEASED WE FOUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT MEET OUR VISION. IT DOES MEET THE VISION OF THOSE WHO WANT TO INTENSIFY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE BIGGER IS BETTER. OUR DTSP PLAN COMMENTS WERE: ENSURE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS DO NOT EXCEED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR BELLA TERRA II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CALLS FOR 50 DU/AC AND 5 STORIES VERSUS 45 DU/AC AND 4 STORIES FOR BELLA TERRA II. WITH REGARD TO THE CULTURAL OVERLAY. THIS CONTROVERSIAL RECOMMENDATION APPARENTLY CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT - THERE IS NO RECORD OF A COMMUNITY 'MEMBER SUGGESTING THIS. WE RECOMMENDED THE PRACTICALITY, FINANCING, USAGE, LOCATION AND OTHER COMMUNITY SUPPORT QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED BEFORE A CULTURAL OVERLAY BE ADOPTED. HBT SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF A CULTURAL CENTER BUT CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO ITS IMPACT ON ADJOINING RESIDENTS AND INCONVENIENT LOCATION FOR HB RESIDENTS. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HB RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE YES TO BUILD AND FIND SUCH A CENTER AT THIS LOCATION. OTHER HBT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, . FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LACK OF UPPER STORY SETBACK WERE ALSO IGNORED. PERHAPS THE EIR'S REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE COULD CONTAIN THESE PROVISIONS. HBTOMORROW HAS SUPPORTED THE PLAZA ALMERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, THE 31 ACRE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT AND THE BELLA TERRA II MIXED USE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE BENFICIAL TO THE CITY, ITS RESIDENTS AND ITS BUSINESSES. HOWEVER WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE BECAUSE IT WILL INTENSIFY USES TO THE DETRIME1.T OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. IN SUMMARY, HBT BELIEVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND AT A MINIMUM DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: REDUCE INTENSITIES TO THE LEVEL OF THE BELLA TERRA II PROJECT WHICH IS ALREADY 50% HIGHER THAN EXISTING STANDARDS AND SECONDLY REMOVE THE CULTURAL OVERLAY FROM THE PROPOSAL. IT' S A BAD IDEA THAT WILL LEAD TO TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE. ED KERINS HBT DTSP COMMITTEE MEMBER Page 1 of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:33 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Wine, Linda Subject: FW: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date Please add this one to your next staff report as well. Thanks" From: Richardson Gray [mailto:richardson.gray@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:54 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date Dear Ms. Wine: Please forward this email to all seven Planning Commissioners. It discusses a number of questions that some Commissioners asked staff to answer, and I would like to get a copy of these answers. I would appreciate your confirming to me that you have sent my email along to the Planning Commnissioners. Thanks a lot. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane 9208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 rich ardson.grayA�yahoo.com --- On Thu, 9/10/09, Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> wrote-, From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo_com> Subject: Fw: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date To: Jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 6:34 PM Hi Again Jennifer, In looking over my notes from the September I st Planning Commission Study Session on the DTSP, I realized that my email to you from last night was incomplete in terms of the questions that the Commissioners asked of staff on September 1 st that were not answered in the public package for the Commission's September 9th meeting. I have listed all of these other questions below,at least the ones for which I want to get copies of your answers. 1. I believe it was Commissioner Scandura who asked staff to present information on how the Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay) meets the goals of the DTSP_ 2_ I believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked if the proposed Cultural Center would be approximatley 37,000 SF, or if not, what would be its maximum permissible 9/27/2009 Page 2 of 3 square footage- 1 1 believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked how much on site parking would be required to service the uses envisioned for the proposed Cultural Center at 37,000 SF,.or if the permissible square footage were larger, how much on site parking would be required to service that greater amount of square footage_ 4. I believe it was Commissioner Scandura who asked for the square footage of the Main Street Library (Library), the square footage of the total Triangle Park (Park) parcel,and square footage numbers for the parcels in the Overlay that are across Main St. from the Library and Park_ 5. I believe it was Commissioner Farley who asked for the exact square footage of the green space at Triangle Park, since this amount of square feet in green space must be preserved according to the DTSP. 6. I believe it was Commissioner Farley whos asked staff to provide an analysis of the impact on the DTSP if the Overlay were removed from the DTSP_ 7. 1 believe it was Commissioner Livengood who asked how much money was available to the City for building the approximately 260 in lieu, off site parking spaces that the City is obligated to build downtown on account of other downtown developments that did not provide enough on site parking. 8. I believe it was Commissioner Degleize who asked for an alternative, smaller suggestion from staff for the proposed Cultural Center. She talked about the possibilities of moving the surf museum there or enhancing the library uses or both. I have included this list in this forwarded email of mine to you from last night, so that you would have all of my questions in one place_ Of course, the answers to my questions in my email from last night are the ones that are most important to me. I have forwarded this email to Linda Wine, to make sure all of the Planning Commissioners see what my questions are. Thank you for your help. Richardson Gray --- On Wed, 9/9/09, Richardson Gray <richardson_grajmAyahoo.com> wrote.- From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo_com> Subject: Proposed Cultural Center Alternative and Public Hearing Date To: JVillasenor@surfeity-hb.org Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 11:37 PM Hi Jennifer, To follow up on my public comment tonight at the Planning Commission Study Session, I need to get a copy of the Planning Department's_downsized alternative for the proposed cultural center at Main Street Library and Triangle Park_ One of the Commissioners asked staff to prepare such an alternative at the September Ist Study Session. When will this alternative proposal be available and how can I get a copy of it? Too,please let me know as soon as you get the Public Hearing scheduled for the Planning Commission on the DTSP and its EIR. I need to get the date, time, and place (Council Chambers, I assume) on my calendar as soon as it is scheduled. 9/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 Thanks. Richardson Gray 4IS" Townsquare Lane #208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 71.4-348-1928 richardsongrayQyahoo_com 9/27/2009 Page I of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wne, Linda Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:26 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer; Wine, Linda Cc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Subject: FW: Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20,2009(Draft EIR)on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP) and their Cultural Art Attachments: McGrath — Park Documents_rtf Dear Jennifer: Please add the attached comments to your staff report for the Downtown Specific Plan for the next Planning Commission meeting. Thanks! From: Richardson Gray [mailto:richardson.gray@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:14 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009 (Draft EIR) on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP) and their Cultural Art Dear Ms. Wine: learned tonight that you are on vacation and that you were not able to get my comments below(and sttached) to the Planning Commission. Please confirm to me by email that you have delivered my comments to all of the Planning Commissioners.and made them a part of the September 9th meeting's official records. Thanks a lot. Richardson Gray 41.5 Townsquare Lane #208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson�ray,�.yahoo.corn --- On Tue,9/8/09, Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@ahoo.coin>wrote: From.- Richardson Gray <richardson_gray@yahoo.com> Subject: Official Public Comments for the Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20,2009 (Draft EIR) on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP) and their Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay) To: linda_wine@surfcity-hb.org Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 7:43 PM Dear Ms_ Wine: lease make this email and its attached letter a part of the official public comments and record for the 9/27/2009 Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission's September 9, 2009 Study Session on the Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009 (Draft EIR) on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP), and their Cultural Arts Overlay (Overlay)_ Measure C The attached letter is a formal public records request to Jennifer McGrath, our elected City Attorney, regarding City documents concerning the Main Street Library (Library), Triangle Park (Park), Measure C, and parkland restrictions. My concern continues to be that the City has not taken an official position in writing on whether the cultural center proposed for the Park in the June DTSP would require a citywide referendum under Measure C_ The public deserves an unambiguous answer from the City on this question as a part of the review process for the June DTSP and its Draft EIR. Draft EIR Summary Comments As you know, I oppose the redevelopment of the Library and Park in the Overlay as a cultural center (Proposed Center) for many reasons, including the following. For all of these reasons,I urge the City to eliminate all proposals in the June DTSP and Draft EIR regarding the Proposed Center at the Library and Park. • Along with roughly 5,000 other Huntington Beach residents, I have signed a petition recommending that the City continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses at the Library and Park in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. • The conclusions of this petition's signers fully contradict the Draft EIR's findings of no significant adverse impacts on aesthetics, with mitigation and code requirements. • The completion of the Proposed Center at the Library and Park would cost surrounding residential property owners millions of dollars in lost property values_ • Locating the Proposed Center at the Library and Park would fully disregard a key land use planning recommendation, unanimously adopted in June 2009 by the business and resident leaders of the City Council's Downtown Image Ad Hoc Committee. This recommendation was for the City to encourage neighborhood-serving retail along Main Street north of Orange Avenue, while keeping Main Street's visitor and tourist oriented uses south of Orange_ • Better locations for the tourist oriented Proposed Center would be either the six(f) closed movie theaters at Pierside Pavilion or the old Mandic Motors site, that currently is for sale (arid which possibly could include the adjoining Electric Chair parcel). Mandic is the last property on the north end of Main Street, near its intersection with Orange, that is visible from the Pier, which would increase pedestrian traffic to the Proposed Center_ • If the Proposed Center were built at the Library and Park, it would substantially degrade downtown's only park away from the beach, and the second oldest park in the City, dating hack to 1912. Based on the original deed for the Park, the City is required to maintain the Park as parkland for alI time, forever. • If the Proposed Center were built at the Library and Park, it would be a misplaced anchor, 9/27/2009 Page 3 of 3 locating a major noise, traffic, and air pollution generator on the border of established residential neighborhoods_ The Library and Park provide a necessary buffer and transition between downtown's dense business and tourist district and its established residential areas_ If the Proposed Center were built on the Park, this necessary buffer and transition would be substantially lost to surrounding residents. • The proposed reconfiguration of Sixth Street and Pecan Avenue, connecting the existing Sixth Street straight through Pecan Avenue to Main Street, would reinstate a design that the City abandoned for good reasons over twenty years ago. • The Main Street Library is the most important historic structure in downtown. Triangle Park is the most historic park in the City. As such, they both should be preserved as historic landmarks for future generations of Huntington Beach residents. • The preservation of the Library and Park has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, the adjoining Townsquare Condominiums and Pierside Town Homes, and the Parks Legal Defense Fund. • The public review for the June DTSP and Draft EIR has been fatally compromised due to inadequate transparency, insufficient responsiveness to resident concerns, and a substantial conflict of interest for one of the leading proponents of the Proposed Center, Steve Bone. Thank you again for your consideration, and I hope support, of my views_ Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane 4208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray tyahoo.com 9/27/2009 RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane #208 - - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7I4-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com Via Certified Mail,Return Receipt Requested, Regular Mail, and Email Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Request for Access and Copies Under the California Public Records Act, Sections 6250 through 6276.48 All Documents Possessed by the City's Officers or Staff Members or Both Concerning Measure C or any Parkland Restrictions or Both for Main Street Library or the Land on which it Sits —Triangle Park—or Both Dear Ms. McGrath: My Request Under the California Public Records Act, Sections 6250 through'6276:48 (Act), I am formally requesting access to all documents in the possession of the City's officers or staff members or both, concerning any parkland restrictions or Measure C (Section 612 of the City's Charter)or both, for Main Street Library or the land on which it is located and which surrounds it.-- Triangle Park—or both. I want to view all of these documents before 1 selectively authorize you to make any copies for me_ By email, I also want you to send me any electronic files that are available for any of these documents_ If you do not grant my request within ten days, by September 18,2009,I need you to send me.a written response by that date, explaining why you denied my request. This deadline is very important, given that the Planning Commission's Public Hearing and Vote are scheduled for September 22, 2009, on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12,2009 (June DTSP) and its supporting Draft Environmental Impact Report of July 20, 2009 (Draft EIR)_ If these documents are not released to the public by September 18`h, I request that this Public Hearing and Vote by the Planning Commission be postponed until after the requested documents are released. Please let me know when I can have access to the requested documents. Public Interest in Disclosure Outweighs Any City Claims for Possible Exemptions In order to provide the public with full and timely information,and thus an adequately transparent review process for the June DTSP and its Draft E1R, the City must release all of the documents requested. This public interest in full disclosure outweighs any possible claims that the City might make for exemptions under the Act_ I My December DTSP Comments In my January 22, 2009 official written public comments to the City's Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 (December DTSP), I raised the issue of Measure C's applicability to Main Street Library and Triangle Park. This issue has yet to be officially answered in writing by the City, in its June DTSP, in the Draft EIR, or otherwise. My May 2009 Meetings with You In my two (2) meetings with you in May this year,you said that the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park in the December DTSP would require a citywide referendum under Measure C. Also in our two (2)May meetings,you agreed to release to the public your official written analysis of Triangle Park's parkland restrictions and of the applicability of Measure C to the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park, now revised by the June DTSP (the June Proposed Center). In a July 9, 2009 email to me, you reconfirmed this legal opinion of yours, that the June Proposed Center would require a citywide referendum under Measure C. Planning Commission's Unanswered Questions Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood, at the June 23, 2009 Study Session on the June DTSP, asked whether Triangle Park was a park and about the applicability of Measure C. The Planning Department's response to Mr. Livengood's questions, which I assume were reviewed by your office,are contained in the Planning Commission's July 28,2009 Study Session Repo g_ This report states in part that, Triangle Park"does not have a zoning or general plan designation for parks or open space. However, as is the case for all projects, any future development proposal would be required to comply with all applicable codes and regulations, including . . _ the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the City Charter(including Section 6I2 "Measure C") to the extent that they apply." The Draft EIR, which again I assume your office reviewed, provides a similar inadequately ambiguous statement about Measure C's applicability to the June Proposed Center(Draft EIR, page 3-13). My June DTSP and Draft EIR Comments, Triangle Park's Deed Restriction, and the Inadequate Transparency of the Public Review Process In my September 2, 2009 official written public comments on the June DTSP and its Draft EIR, I again raise the issue of Measure C's applicability to the June Proposed Center. In these comments, I also quote Triangle Park's original deed, which required the City to maintain the entire property as parkland forever. To repeat myself, this deed restriction never has been explicitly terminated_ Throughout Triangle Park's entire history of almost one hundred(100) years, it has functioned as a park and has been regulated by the City as a park. In my January 22, 2009 written comments on the December DTSP, I included a photograph of a sign that still stands in Triangle Park today, listing all of the City's park regulations that apply to Triangle Park. 2 The City's residents and property owners have the right to enforce Triangle Park's parkland deed restriction against the City_ Furthermore, Triangle Park's parkland deed - restriction supersedes Measure C. The City simply does not have the right to build the cultural center proposed in the June DTSP on Triangle Park, even if the voters were to approve the project in a citywide referendum. Finally, in my September 2, 2009 comments, I stated that your failure to release to the public your official written analysis has fatally compromised the public review process for the June DTSP and the Draft EIR, due to a lack of adequate transparency_ This official written analysis of yours should include Triangle Park's parkland restrictions and the applicability of Measure C to the June Proposed Center. My Repeated Public Comments at the Planning Commission's June DTSP Study Sessions During the Planning Commission's Study Sessions this summer on the June DTSP, as a part of my public comments, I have repeatedly asked the City to address two (2) questions about Triangle Park and Measure C. First, does the City agree that Triangle Park is a park under Measure C? Second, if the City were to attempt to move forward with the proposed cultural center at Triangle Park, with uses that in any way go beyond a simple expansion or improvement of the Main Street Library, would a citywide referendum be required under Measure C? An attorney from your office, Leome Mulvihill, attended these Planning Commission meetings and heard my public comments and requests_ But again,the public has yet to receive an unambiguous, official written response from the City. Conclusion It now has been over eight months since my January 22,2009 letter about the December DTSP and over three months since our two (2) May 2009 meetings. I think the public has waited long enough, too long,for your officially answering our questions about Triangle Park, its parkland restrictions, and the applicability of Measure C to the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park in the June DTSP_ I look forward to receiving your answer to this letter, and your answers to the questions that my letter raises. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter_ Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray cc: All City Council Members All Planning Commission Members The Orange County Register The Huntington Beach Independent 3 Page 1 of 2 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Kirk Nason [kirk_nason@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:52 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer, Fritzal, Kellee; Planning Administrative Assistant Cc: info@hbr4bdt.com Subject: RE: Residential Parking Jennifer& Kellee, 1 am in favor of metered or visitor permitted parking in the entire downtown area with yearly permits(two per single family home)given free to property tax paying residents. In reviewing the residential parking recommendations in Book2,chapter s,section s.s.s.,, 1 want to make sure that the metered parking does not end at 11th street, but continues all the way to Golden West and also extend inland to at minimum of Orange Ave.and preferably Palm Ave. Today there is some metered parking on GW,22"d,21st,and others in that area as well as downtown- We often see in July beach goers extend their parking search up to Main Street Le \ - - �� li-'3 -a A1LAl1v�Y-T I despise my front yard, sidewalk and street turning into a garbage dump for significant portions of the year. Visitors just don't care and even cause damage to our cars by cramming themselves into to small parking spots. Similar to downtown, painting spots to buffer parking is also needed. Two weekends ago, I had to call the IiB Police because of fighting over a spot in front of my home. Ultimately neither car could fit into the spot they were fighting over,which was even more ironic! Often I want to go outside and make comments to the visitors, but fear so, because of the damage they can cause to my personal property if they are vengeful. I have witnessed people,after giving a polite reminder,to in turn drive by and throw all their trash out into the street as well as diapers. We experience "tagging"on our curbs this summer,which the city and to come and remove at tax payer expense and neighbors had front yard furniture stolen. Please make my comments known- Regards, ,:irk J. Nason 9/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 714 321-7298 (c) kirk f_�ason@hotmai_l_.com htte%(kirkn.spaces_._li.ve._com/ First recipient of the "HB Goes Green" home award b Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 9/27/2009 RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane #208, 1-luntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928, richardson.gray@yahoo.com Joan Flynn, City Clerk September- 17, 2009 City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: City Council Meeting,September 21, 2009, IIotel/Motel Business Improvement District (BID) Public Hearing, Steve Bone's Two Possible Conflicts of Interest Dear Ms" Flynn: Please make this letter and all of its attachments a part of the public comments and official record for the referenced public hearing. I own my home in downtown Huntington Beach. After a 25-year career in commercial real estate investments,I have retired here. Attached are a sample of a September 10t' letter that I sent to all BID members except the Hyatt, and my August 19`h letter to Jennifer McGrath. These packages address two possible conflicts of interest.for Steve Bone, the President& CEO of the Huntington Beach Marketing& Visitors Bureau (MVB), which administers the BID. The MVB and BID are largely publicly funded, through the approximately twenty percent(20%) of room taxes that the City pays them" With this public sponsorship and taxpayer funding, Mr_ Bone's two possible conflicts come from his$1,000,000-plus(and possibly much more)ownership interest, of at least 10% (and possibly much more) of the Hyatt, First,with his large Hyatt investment as such a powerful motivation, Mr. Bone. logically should give preference to attracting guests and groups that would benefit the Hyatt first and foremost. Second, given that Mr. Bone's compensation from the MVB is largely funded by taxpayer dollars, and based on his sizable Myatt ownership,I believe that Mr.Bone has a substantive conflict of interest in his lobbying efforts for the proposed cultural center at Main St. Library and Triangle Park(Proposed Center),even if his efforts might be technically legal under.the City's Conflict of Interest Code. The attached worksheet provides a calculation that estimates an increase of at least $590,000 in Mr.-Bone's personal net worth,flowing from the Proposed Center's impact on the Hyatt's.room revenues, as set out in the enclosed, highlighted supporting infortnation, ineluding.pages from the MVB's Analysis of Potential Market Demand for the Proposed Center. This second conflict is exacerbated by the"widespread opposition to the Proposed Center from Huntington Beach residents,with more than 5,600 signing a petition. Sin ly yo s, �• � (��� U �� chardson Gray SEP 17 7009 cc: Linda Wine & Planning Commissioners (hand delivered) Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. �`t-p v ITV 1�• l}V 4 ------- 0,6 0 04 KIv� LA, jo j��o T t�G RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane 9208, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928, richardson.gray@yahoo.com - -- September 17, 2009 Calculation of an Increase of At Least$590,000 in Value of Steve Bone's Hyatt Investment Generated from Cultural Center's Projected Impact on Hyatt Room Revenues All Assumptions from Hyatt's Website and..MVB.Analysis of Potential Market Demand Attached Pages,Except for Estimated Revenue Valuation Multiple Leisure Share of HB Hotel Demand 50% Projected Increase in Leisure Demand Generated by Cultural Center 10% Total Increased Demand from Cultural Center(50% X 10%=) 5% Cultural Center Year of Opening 2013 2015 Projected HB Stabilized Hotel Occupancy 7210 Share of 2015 Projected HB Occupancy from Cultural Center(5% X 72% =) 3.6% Hyatt's Total Guest Rooms 517 Rooms Hyatt's Annual Supply of Room Nights(365 Nights X 517 R ooms=) 188,705 Hyatt's Added Occupied Nights from Cultural Center(3.6%X 188,705 =) 6,793 Nights 2015 Projected HB Average Daily Rate (Hyatt's ADR would be Much Higher) At Yeast$174 Hyatt 7s Room Revenues from Cultural Center(6,793 Nights X$174 ADR=) At Least .(Increased Total Revenues(wl Food, Beverage, Other) would-be Much Higher) $1,181,982 Estimated Revenue Valuation Multiple for Hyatt 5.0 X c Hyatt's.Valuation Increase from Cultural Center At.Least (5.0 X AtLeast $1,181,982) $5,909,910 Steve Bone's Percentage Ownership Interest in Hyatt At Least I0% Steve Boise's Increase in Value of Hyatt Investment At Least from Cultural Center(At Least 10% X At Least $5,909,910) $590,991 Proposed Cultural Center—Huntington Beach,California Kuntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau—Surf City USAC Art Museums $1,233,924 $1,270,000 History Museums $230,000 $228,000 Science and Technology Museums $2,218,977 $2.637.4.62 Arboreturns and Botanical Gardens $906,561 $915,31.9 Hybrid and Other $620,5001 $589,903 Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey,2008. ECONOMIC IMPACT The fact that museums and cultural centers provide employment to nearly 60,000 individuals makes the museum industry a major factor in the economy of the state of California. On a local level, as the City of Huntington Beach embraces its cultural history and "Surf City" roots with the Cultural Center project, secondary effects such as an increase in day-trip visitor spending and extended lengths of stay for overnight hotel visitors air�-� reasonable outcomes. Rather than focus on economic impacts which trace the estimai U flow of money spent by visitors to the proposed Cultural Center, we have analyzed the local Huntington Beach hotel market and have evaluated total occupied rooms in the city based on an assumed opening date for the subject. Additionally, we have determined the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) levels as a result of average length of hotel stays increasing. Projected Hotel Market Performance &TOT Impact The proposed Surfing Cultural Center will be the newest attraction for both local residents and visitors of Huntington Beach. As such, we are of the opinion that an increase in total. occupied rooms and average length of stay at the surrounding hotels will occur due to induced demand in the leisure travel segment.-The following table represents the Mix of demand in 2008 within the seventeen hotels which contribute TOT to the city. Competitive Market 2008 Mix of Demand Market Segment Room Nights Ratio Leisure 219,200 50% " oommme ial 90,900 2T Group 126,700 29 Total 437,000 100% Source:PKF Consulting -40- Proposed Cultural Center-Huntington Beach,California _PKF Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau-Surf City USA* In order for us to determine the increase in overnight visitors and average length of stay for the leisure segment, we analyzed the historical growth in supply and demand in the local lodging market. The primary market research we conducted involved interviewing representatives of key lodging properties in Huntington Beach. We discussed development patterns in the area with officials in the planning department and marketing efforts with representatives.from the Marketing.& Visitor's Bureau. Additionally, we interviewed and obtained data from officials at the city on historical transient occupancy tax receipts. Hotel Visitor Extended Length of Stay Through the combination of our aforementioned research, we have estimated the current average length of stay for overnight leisure visitors to be three days. This figure has been assumed according to our interviews with hotel management personnel at surrounding hotels. According to local city hotel operators, an overnight leisure guest will typically plan activities that will occupy four to five hours of his or her day. Just as the areas beaches, retail attractions, and community events now draw many of the leisure guests to Huntington Beach, we believe that a proposed Cultural Center will offer tourists an additional "activity" day to their respective vacation itineraries resulting in increased room nights in nearby hotels. The Cultural Center will offer exciting interactive exhibits, special events, premiers, and a historical learning experience which should provide a four-hour learning and entertainment experience for visitors to the area. We believe the facility will also create additional awareness for international travelers who currently are displaced in other-beach destinations such as San Diego or Newport Beach. Our estimates of the local lodging market potential are. based, in part, upon our recommendations concerning the economic environment and market positioning for future hotel development in the City, as well as the advent of the subject facility. Presented below are the-following-assumptions wile have made in order-to project future demand for lodging accommodations as well as TOT collections for the City of Huntington Beach: • The proposed Cultural Center will open in 2013 • The Shorebreak Hotel will open in mid-2009 with 157 guestrooms • The W Hotel will enter the hotel market with 250 rooms in 2011 • We have induced 22,000 room nights into the leisure segment between 2013 and 2014, consistent with the subject's opening date (this equals approximately a 10 percent increase in total leisure-oriented occupied room nights) CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO TOT PROJECTIONS While the Huntington Beach lodging market experienced a record high in 2007 and the first three quarters of 2008, the economic recession has negatively impacted the demand -41 - PKF Proposed Cultural Center_Huntington Beach, California Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau-Surf City USA0 - levels for leisure, commercial and group business in late 2008 and into 2009. We expect an absence of growth in the market in the short-term; however we anticipate these events to result in a recovery of demand growth over the long-term due to Huntington Beach's beachside positioning and redevelopment projects nearing completion. The extent to which the market is able to translate growth in demand to rate and occupancy growth depends primarily upon the recovery period for the economy, and more specifically the competitive advantage the city can create compared to other surrounding beach-oriented . cities. The following tables summarize the historical and projected occupancy and ADR for the Huntington Beach lodging market, which would result from the specific supply and demand assumptions described herein. We have also presented the associated TOT revenue projections for this market on a calendar year basis. Historical Market Performance of the Local Hotel Market Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Daily Rate Change REVPAR Change 2004 606,265 WA 406,365 WA 67.0% $121.07 WA $81.15 - WA 2005 606,265 0.0% 433,978 6.8% 71.6 129.32 6.8*k 92.57 14.1% 2006 606,265 0.0 433,452 -0.1 71.5 138.79 7.3 99.23 7.2 2007 606,265 0.0 442,315 2.0 73.0 151.92 9.5 110.84 11.7 2008 606,265 0.0 436 824 -1.2 72.1 151.12 -0.5 108.89 -1.8 CRAG 0.0% 1.8% 5.7% 7.6% 2-08 ytd 101,105 N/A 70,979 N/A 70.2% $144.56 WA $101.49 WA 2-09 ytd 101105 0.0% 57,742 -18.6% 57.1% 133.04 -8.0% 75.98 -25.1% Source_PKF Consulting Pr jected Market Performance of the Local Hotel M et Annual Percent Occupied Percent Market Average Percent Percent Year Supply Change Rooms Change Occupancy Dail Rat Change REVPAR Change 2009 629,990 3.9% 406,600 -6.9% 147.00 -2.7% $94.87 -12.9% _2010 ._663,570 _ 5.3 418,700 3.0 63 148.00 0.7 93.39 -1.6 2011 754,820 13.8 449,300 7.3 60 151.00 2.0 89.88 -3.8 2012 754,820 0.0 475,700 5.9 63 156.00 3.3 98.31 9.4 2013 754,820 0.0 502,000 5.5 67 164.00 5.1 109.07 10-9 2014 754,820 0.0 534,000 6.4 71 169.00 3.0 119.56 9.6 ® 201 S 754,820 0.0 543,500 1.8 72 174.00 3.0 125.29 4.8 `FQl6- 754,820 0.0 543,500 0.0 .00 2.9 128.89 2-9 2017 754,820 0.0 543,500 0.0 72 184.00 2.8 132A9 2.8 2018 754,820 0.0 543 500 0.0 72 190-00 3.3 136.81 3.3 CRAG 2.0% 1 3.3% 1 2.9% 4.2% Source:PKF Consulting -42- ACCOMMODATION CONFERENCES&BANQUETS •517 guestrooms,including 3 Presidential suites,57 total suites,275 kings, -A total of 52,000 square feet of function space,20,000 square feet of prefunction 185 queeniqueens,and 16 accessible rooms available;All accommodations offer: space,and 40,000 square feet of outdoor function space •Andalusian-inspired furnishings -Three ocean-view ballrooms,including the 20,000 square foot Grand Ballroom with • Bathrobes space for up to 2,000 people and over 40,000 square feel of function courtyards for •CD/dock radios and remote 27'cable TV outdoor events Coffee maker and refrigerator - 11,000 square foot Mariner's Ballroom with 16'ceilings • Data port and two-fine telephones • Internet access in all meeting rooms •Down comforters • Hairdryers RECREATIONAL FACILITIES •High speed Wireless Internet access -lagoorrstyte swimming pool •Individual controlled air conditioning •Spa Grottos,a series of three exotic spa pools located amongst lush landscaping and •In-room safe rocky outcrops •Iron/itroning board • Two beautifully landscaped tennis courts •Large bathrooms with natural stone countertops •20,000 square foot Pacific Waters Spa-Reminiscent of an elegant private Spanish •Oversized desks and work/desk area estate,the Pacific Waters Spa creates a paradise of welt-being throughout 17 •Original artwork treatment rooms and outdoor private treatment areas.We offer such luxuries as: Pillow top mattresses dry sauna,steam rooms,mews and women s lounges with private whidpoots,water- Private balcony/patio fall showers,a premier fitness center,and a full service salon - Nearby championship golf courses SERVICES & FACILi T IES - Direct beach access via a pedestrian bridge •Camp Hyatt•activities for kids •Children's activity center POINTS OF 1NTEPEST -Corfcierge services - Scenic Pacific Coast Highway •Retail plaza with unique shops and boutiques,including ice cream parlor and • Huntington Beach Pier gourmet grocer -Bolsa Chita Ecological Preserve •Business Center •Surfing Walk of Fame •ATM k9ernational Surfing Museum •Art gallery -Catalina Island •Gift shop - Newport Harbor •Toes on the Nose,Adventure Hyatt Store - Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure - Knott s Berry Farm RESTAURANTS & BARS • Queen Mary •The Californian—Contemporary •Aquarium of the Pacific Surf City Sunset Grille—Casual,Cocktails • South Coast Plaza Red Chair Lounge—Cocktails • Fashion Island shopping center •Ma nkota's—Poolside casual •Tower 15—Pizzeria RICIIIARD SON GRAY 4I5 Townsquare Lane#208, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928, richardson_gray@yahoo.com Steve Bone's Possible Conflicts of Interest Hotel/Motel BID and RVB September 10, 2009 Dear Members of the Huntington Beach HoteVMotel Business Improvement District: I am writing about your membership in the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District(BID). The Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau (MVB) manages the BID. To support the BID and MVB,you pay them about 2% of your room revenues through your City room taxes. Steve Bone is the President& CEO of the MVB. From his attached Statement of Economic Interests for 2008 (and the enclosed five related newspaper articles), you can see that Mr.Bone owns at least 10% (and possibly much more) of the local Hyatt hotel. He valued his investment at over$1,000,000 (and possibly much more), and he received in excess of $100,000 in annual non-employee income from this investment(and possibly much more). In my opinion,Mr. Bone's Hyatt investment poses two possible conflicts of interest. First, in light of Mr. Bone's substantial Hyatt ownership, it seems unlikely to me that he could provide the BID's members with the solidly impartial leadership that they deserve and pay for. With his large Hyatt investment as such a powerful motivation, Mr. Bone logically should give preference to attracting guests and groups to our local hotels that would benefit the Hyatt first and foremost. Second,Mr. Bone is a leading advocate for a proposed cultural center at Main St. Library and Triangle Park(Proposed Center), which faces overwhelming resident opposition—more than 5,000 petition signers to date, including me. Given that Mr. Bone's compensation from the MVB is largely funded by taxpayer dollars,and based on his sizable Hyatt ownership, I believe that Mr.Bone has a substantive conflict of interest in his lobbying efforts for the Proposed Center, even if his efforts might be technically legal under the City's Conflict of Interest Code. If you agree with me that Mr. Bone might have a conflict of interest,you could express your opinion by speaking at a Public.Hearing about the BID on Monday, September 21". This hearing is a part of the City Council meeting beginning at 6:00 PM, at City Hall,2000 Main Street,92648 (the legal notice is attached). Alternatively or in addition,you could send your written comments to the City Clerk." Written comments must be received by the City Clerk no later than the 6:00 PM beginning of this City Council meeting, and must contain sufficient documentation to verify business ownership. In case you would like to talk with other BID members, I have enclosed a two-page membership list, with names, addresses, and phone numbers. Today I have mailed this same letter to all BID members except the Hyatt. Thank you for your consideration of my opinions_ Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray ®. ; I� ®. 1 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS Date Recet ORldet Use Onlntyy ved ° _ 1VFD COVER PAGE Phase 4po orprinrrn ink. A Public Document 2009 AUG 28 Ali S, 03 NAME (LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) D MBER MAILING ADDRESS STREET' CITY _STATE ZIP CODE OPTIONAL'FAX I E-MAIL ADDRESS (May use business address) 1. Office, Agency, or Court 4. Schedule Summary Flame of Office,Agency, or Court a Total number of pages "C A-, 'J Including this cover page: t7iyi>don, rd, 1511birict, If applica P, Check applicable schedules or"No reportable c��� CA 2 '( AV Interests." ��� � I have disclosed Interests on one or more of the Your position: �s attached schedules: Schedule A-1 ❑Yes-schedule attached If filing for multiple positions,list additional agency(ies)l Invesfinents(t_ess tbae toss o�,arztrPl positlon(s): (Attach a separate sheet If necessary) Schedule A-2 XYlxter as-schedule attached Agency- lnresLnants(to% ownwwp) Scheduie B ❑Yes—schedule attached Positlon_ Real Property Schedule C N`es—schedule attached 2. Jurlsdlctlon of Office (Check at least ons&,v Income, Loans,,Q Stfslness Positions(mown ornerman Grm and Travel Payment;! ®county of Schedule D 'Yes-schedule attached Income—Gifts City of Schedule E ❑Yes-schedule attached ❑Mtdti t oU1ty income-Gdfs-Travel Payannts ®Other -or- No reportable Interests on any schedule 3_ Type of Statement fchea at least one box) ❑ Assuming®tficelinitiat Date:—J_J 6.`/er;f>!ca$9on Annual: The period.00vered Is January 1.2008. h December 31, 2008- 1 have used all reasonable diligence In preparing this statement I have reviewed this statement and to the best -or- of my tmawiedge the Inf+otmation contained herein and 6 any O The period covered is __f_._ J through attached schedules Is true and complete. December 31. 2008. certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ❑ cleaving Office Date Left-___I___J of California that the foregoing is true and correct. (Check one) O The period covered is January 1, 2008. through the date of leaving office. Date Signed 2- 0 The period covered Is_—J__..-__lam through the date of leaving office- Signature (rm the stein peed statement Whh your»tg adcu-) ❑ Candidate Election Year. FPPC Form T00(200812009) FPPC Tolt-Frae Heipl(ne:866IASK-FPPC wwW fppcca.9ov SCHEDULE A-2 CALIMMIA 1 1 Investments, Income, and Assets ' Name of Business Entities/Trusts (Ownership Interest is 10% or Greater) INESS • .- 1 cr_ Neale Narne — �!✓ate Address 2 Address Check one Check one ❑Trust,go to 2 WBusiness Enflty,complete the box,Men go to 2 ❑ Trust,go to 2 ((Business Entity,complete the box,then go to 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF B SINESS ACTIVTY GENERAL DESCRIPTIO OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE,UST DATE: FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE,LIST DATE $2,000-$10,000 Ler o00-$10.000 $10.001-$100,000 - 88- �j�08 0,001-$100,000 _I__IU8 $100.001-$1,000.000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED 00,001-$1,000.000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED over$1,000.000 $1,000,000 NATURE OF INVESTMENT NATURE OF INVESTMENT ❑Sofa Proprietorship Partnership ❑ / ❑Sole Prop&-Wrsfdp Wartnershlp ❑YOUR BUSINESS POSiTiON 7#1 V IIE' �KTO -4G 04 YOUR BUSINESS POSITION lip • • ❑so-a+se ❑11O.M-$100,000 So-Sale sto.001-$160.000 ®t8500-ii3Ooo $100.000 5500-$4.000 WVER 3;100.000 ®41,001-$10,000 ❑❑❑41.001 -$10.000 a, • v- 'Y OREM cbsck� One bast Chadic One b= ®INVmuENT REAL PROPERTY ❑INVESTMENT REAL PROPERTY Name of$runes Entity er Nerne Qrtuslnes3 Entity Qc GbvOtAddf—s OfAssessorls Parcel Number of Real Property StreetAddresss or Assessor's Parcel Nurnber of eal Properly d Business Amy CE Desa"M of Business Actfvity g CkY Or 09W Predse Location-of Real Property City or Othef Predse loostlon of Real Property FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE.LIST DATES FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE.LIST OATS $2,000-$10,1i00 $7,000-$10,000 $toI -$1Q0,000 --- j=fig Sto,001-$100,e06 _/ 08 $100.t101-V.000,000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED S1o0,001-$1.000.000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED Over�•�• b1,000,000 NATURE OF INTEREST NATURE OF INTEREST ,},� ❑P-01-ty OwnerahWDeed of Trust ❑Stock Partnershlp ElProperty Property-Ownership/Deed of Tnrst El stock i�rartnership ❑Leasehold ❑Oem ��CCCC ❑Leasehold ❑Other 77> Ya.rn W-q Ym.mmalift ❑Check bou It addiflOnai schedules reporting Inveshnents or teat property ❑Check box If additional schedules reporting Investments or reel property are etfached are allached Omments- FPPC Form 700(200812009)$ch.A-2 FPPC Toll-Free Helpiine:800/ASK-fPPC v+rwwfppc.ca.gov SCHEDULE C CALIFIORNA.FoRg Income, Loans, & Business Positions mama (Other than Gifts and Travel Payments) • - • 1P 1.INCOMEo NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME l � �� AAx3r '4'-"Q0 S:!�j we�6� ADDRESS�f!b'�!l �� AD DROSS -,! IIZZ, V VL e—F BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY, SOURCE �4-� YOUR BUSINESS POSITION YOUR BUSINESS POSITION GROSS INCOME RECEIVED GROSS INCOME RECEIVED ❑$soo-$1.000 p st,00l-$10.000 ❑$5W-$1.000 ❑$1.001 -$10.000 S10,001-$100,000 FkIUvER$100,000 ❑s10,001-$100,000 (ZbvER s100,o00 CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED ❑Salary []spouse's or registered domestic pwhwr's Inoome [ Salary L]Spouse's or registered dory s par6rer4 kwome ❑I— loan repayment ❑sale Of L]sale of 01OP-4c c-C Goat 01 '(Pr pero:ar boat.era) ®Conatdssbn a �]Rental kroome,eat eadr awacn W 514�or morc [: Commission or D Rental lncorm.Aar each somco ar s to 000 or mare 1/lOttwr -c e t 6 a�� (other ��if U � � - 1HIE REPORTING oe - You are not required to report loans from commercial lending institutions, or any Indebtedness created as part -of a retail Installment or-credit card transaction, made In the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to your official status. Personal loans and loans received not In a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER' INTEREST RATE TERM(Mwn4nA%M) % []None ADDRESS SECURITY FOR LOAN BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY,OF LENDER None Q PerBorral residence Real Property sheereddmss HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD o$5W=$,ate CRY $1.001-$10.000 ❑Guarantor �]$10,001-$100,000 ®OVER$100,CW []Ofher (oesrnbe/ Comments: FPPC Fonn Too (200812009)Sch. C FPPC Toil-Free Helpline:8881A8K-FPPC www.9ppC.Ca.90v SCHEDULE C CALIFORNIA KOWAf Income, Loans, & Business ' Positions Name (Other than Gifts and Travel Payments) NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME NAME OF SOURCE OF INCOME ADDRESS CEE�a.�i� �( ADDRESS BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF$11Y.OF.SOURCE BUSINESS ACTMTY,IF .OF SOUR YOUR BUSINESS POSITION YOUR BUSINESS POSITION GROSS INCOME RECEIVED GROSS INCOME RECEIVED $500-$1 000 ❑$1.001-$10.000 p$500-$1,000 ❑$1,00,-$10.000 ❑$10.001-$100,000 KOVER$100.000 IR$10,0w-S-100.000 ❑OVER$100,000 SIOERAVON FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED fANSIDERATiON FOR WHICH INCOME WAS RECEIVED Salary fj Spouse's or registered domestic part la partner'.Inoorne Sary f j Spouse's or registeredm domestic partners Inoorne eV I]Loan repayment ❑Loan repayrrtertt Q Sale of Sale of (Property,car,Doat etc.J (F3operp;car,boat etc-) Corrunission or Rental Income,list each source or g to o00 or more Commission or Rental Inane,au each source o(110.0 U or more ®Other Other t0escri8el foesal6e/ - You are not required to report loans from commercial lending Institutions, or any Indebtedness created as part of_a retail installment or credit card transaction, made In the lender's regular course of business on terms available to.members of the public without regard to your official status.- Personal loans-and loans received not In a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER- INTEREST RATE TERM(MonQtsrlteaN % None ADDRESS SECURITY FOR LOAN WSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY,OF LENDER ❑Nos1a []Petsonal reside(" [] Real PropertY Street address HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD ❑$500-$1.000 - Ctb $1,o01-$10,000 Guarantor ❑S10,001-E100,000 - Q OVER$100.000 I]Other (oeJ Comments: FPPC Form 700(200812009)Sch.C FPPC Toll-Free Helptine: 866/ASK-FPPC arww.fppe-ca.gov ` •' • "® SCHEDULE D Income — Gifts Name fr NAME OF SOURCE f > NAME OF SOURCE et .�C� cc utQcc _ A2 L C� ��f ADDRESS 4-y BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF AMOOF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY.OF SOURCE DATE(mmldd(yy) VALUE 0 DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE(aomldd(yy) VALUE DESCRIPTION OF OIFT(S) ► NAME OF SOURCE NAME OF SOURCE _ ADDRESS (o�C ( (( � ADDRESS BUSINESS ACTIYI ,IF ANY,OF SOURCE. BUSINESS ACTIVITY,IF ANY,OF SOURCE DATE(tmWdd" VALUE DESCRIPTION OFUGIF-V jg DATE(mrrJddlyy) VALUE "DESCRIPTION OF G1FT(S) por f� C✓j`4ss- � NAME OF SOURCE i NAME OF SOURCE ADDRESS ADDRESS BUSINESSACTIVITY,IF ANY.OF SOURCE BUSINESS ACTIVFIX IF ANY,OF SOURCE DATE(aut U&M VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) DATE jm WddlM VALUE DESCRIPTION OF GIFT(S) Comments: - FPPC Form 700(200012009)Sck ID FPPC Toll-Free Helplioe:8661ASK-FPPC www.fpPc-ca.goV pie '0 E COUP §uMday,Ai�g.ao,zoos, Low Y 0 o rrs rye �: I � lat. •s. a em A dowritog 'n-resident' to1'd.Hun , to.ri Beacb off cials Au g• board member shadn't:filed the'reports on financial ilnvestrs e; s;'. 9arke "irtg add:, By A N N I s;•B,n R R 1 s• filing was.at over7sigbt and that he. Bone's ,700 form shows that:aleSEOI`S"B UTE'al] THE ORANGE COUNTY;REGISTER expected the forms to be filled has more than,$im17HOX10 1Ve8t Steve:8O' n`s,pr8sidQnt and CEO early the following week, merits in the Hyatt. of the bureau J HUNTINGToN..-0zA,C.WMoi*thana But as.ofFriday,six forms were tow•canitnotbeintzhe'b'ackof J D.Slater with Hilton lYater week after-the oi'Ly `plerted missing:those of Suzanne$sake- his mind,preference£lied a bi4d front Beach:Resort that'its toitriszta butt vas five',;1'ma; who is with a catering,and ness to fiz t go'to�%6'1`11yatt?; . Margie months latelfi fi7 =eial'di13,. event plpnnin compars r, Marco Gray said. West College 6unten with Golden closure doou3 nin@ of'the 16 :Ferry, who is associated' with-, 'Bone said his interest;In the Cheryl Phelps.with Hyatt Re required forms,have,beel ,turned ShorebreakHotel downtowb,Pat Hyatt was not'a conAi(' tinter.- • gency in, officials said. Rogers, of,the-Bella Terra shop- est because he-was iiot�d ybting Shftley.Dettloff with Amigos "it-is a,COU4esytotyeanindi... ,pirigg: ,center; .'Maureen .Sloan member of, the board;`,When de Bolsa Chita vidul a time'to comply, we are .lames,wlv is wit;15 PofritaPlaza; asked about the inftuence•'.of`hls taaRrc MAkm s . t3hetf B in that eriod of e :mod' e'. FLU '" of e,m ton BrUes„w�tb D p tirri ," th uric position with the,board ke re- $tgel3an+a Is.preslctett rtdr�CO nd oar is arx., telli f thevlsltb Suzaii>i®Be Bo4ie,the I iuitington acii feg pd son & e ; and Michael spo ed, 'The'b d, iii r's'bureae: ketinga"d V'isitors$iireau's cfiz�'-',.G�zret 'of x` 'Properties; gent board :and they oaf .make Itnne's Cate executive and pregide3it , d '1s;,bu g,F cific, City on their own decisions.". could be Stied:byihe city4 a,day Pt"anning T, Downtown resident• ' c' oastmal z yaxtidthe se- Gray has :clashed with ,Bane with a'maxixmm of$100 t6r.not Marra Perry alth Shorebreak Richardson Gray had written City, xiiof'center in,CentrdiPark. over a,study the bureau copimis- "filing, said Roman Pprter, execu Attorney Jennifer•McGrath on "gym I'coneerned? No;"Mayor sioned to.consider the economic tive director of the state Pair Po Ron•McLin with ngtioard R �' Aug.19 saying that•Bone and,'&"' keitb'$ohr said about ihe•late M ' impacts ofbuilding'a cultural ten- litical Practices Commission, taurant and Pub bureau's 14 Board members had ,„irigs,"The.follm Tm sure`wM,,do;it ter,in,downtown's only park.The which oversees those forms.The . Kevin Patel Zvi h, soh n failedtoturnindoatimentsknown oreaoy lresigh;-itiskindofa� plans call for a performing pit comniissioz} Gqu1d'';later impose sdA�xpress:Inn atrri' tea as''700 forms. The reports C� Si" simple "'tl� 4 It i4,not a big deal• theater and undergroundparking fines up to$b;000,Porter said. Joyce kfddell`'with k oton close financial 'i�vestments 'aaci for rnost people;but'for some peo- structiii e for the' center that bity Clerk,roan Flyer said she Beach Chambef df Co ce,l are ar.equirement'in the bure'au's pleit is.Tlieydo�'t want the-ir'per- could•generate$4.5tnillion;,ayear' isn't obligated,to,•serid e,•second 1 pat'Ro9ecs tith Bel ' 7r,a}: contract with the city. so,A4 financial iayestments,and and attract snout 300,000 tour-% notice,of laie,filing to-'the bureau Maureen sloan'James y,jth'5 . Tbeforms are-often used to de- information, out 'there 'and; ;it.is fists a year. until Oct:I-`McGtath'saicl.*e''bu- points Pfaia �:�, teilne conflicts of interest with' their'eall" ' Gray said 'the cultural center reau'e}delay could be considered a Michael Gagnet with Makar elected officials- such as City Gray has pointed out concerns, would affect the quality of lif6 for breach of contract, Properties Gouncnl'.n mbers, planning tom- . thatBorie,fornier iresidentofthe' downtown 'residents. Igo, coon i D4n7oF ence-wlthlaq&Teen missioners,the city treaqurer,arid Robert 1Vf -er.,Cdrp., which built' has.been,taken on`these plans, cnNTACr,;rtKlc rvwts�a Music the city attorney the,ciWA'Mtoh and 11yatthotels, which were fled Witl�,tlie;bureau "9J�'9,b�a-2�y; a Bone staid Aug.'21 that,the late' mi:&v,iiave a conflict.ot'iaterest.• Bone and board'emlzers a• urrls�ocr� ts}e, ° ' I i 1. t• 1 ,I.. .V', •ha � i r - C'w '. P�GSJR[ [Friday,August 28,2009 said Steve Bone, the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau's CEO and 0n{y 5 of tourism president _ bureau's 15 late Downtown resident Richardson Gray had written City Attorney Jennifer McGrath on Aug_ 19 saying that Bone and the bureau's forms turned Jn so 14 board members had failed to turn in documents known as 700 forms. The reports far disclose financial Investments and are a requirement in the bureau's contract with the city. More than a week after The forms are often used to determine conflicts of interest with elected-officials Huntington Beach officials such as City Council.members, Planning were alerted about-late Commissioners,the city treasurer and city - attorney_ only some have been turned - financial disclosure forms, Bone said Aug_21 that the late filing was an oversight and he expected the forms to be in. filed early this week-However, as of today, the only forms that had been turned in were from Bone and board members Kevin Patel The Orange County Register with Howard Johnson Express Inn and Suites, Cheryl Phelps with the Hyatt,J.D. Shafer with HL)WINGTON BEACH—More then a week the Hilton, and former mayor and Amigos de after the city was alerted that its tourism Bolsa Chica representative Shiriey Dettloff. bureau was five months late in filing financial disc9osure-documents,only-five of-the 15 "I'm retired, so mine is kind of a simple required forms have been turn in,officials form,'said Dettloff who turned in her said. documents on Monday. "Some of these people are very much in business so they are Olt Is a courtesy to give an Individual a time going to take a little bit longer. I am going to to comply,so we are-in that period of time," assume that every person on the board will Aav�erussa,ent - - VAL `Yr _ l kA A Pfit:Pvsr�rcl = {'11a !�rA' http:/fwww.ocregister_conVarticles/board-city-bone-2544817-bureau-farms Uu«aUs i rare rorms turned in so tar I board, city, bone, bureau, forms_-_ Page 2 or _i aweEl. �rrcom have it by the end of Friday)." conflict of interest because he was not a voting member of the board. When asked The city is still waiting for forms from board about the influence of his position with the members that include Dean Torrence, part of board he responded, "The board is an the music legend Jan& Dean, and Michael intelligent board and they can make their Gagnet with Makar Properties, which is own decisions_" building Pacific Cityon Pacific Coast Highway and the senior center in Central Park.Also Gray has clashed with Bone over a study the on the board are Margie Bunten with Golden bureau commissioned to consider the West College and Marco Perry with ecgnomic impacts of building a cultural Shorebreak Hotel_ center on downtown's only park.The plans call for a performing art theater and 'Am I concerned?No,"Mayor Keith Bohr said underground parking structure for the about the late filings. "The folks I'm sure will center that could generate $4.5 million a do it or they will resign—it is kind of as year and attract about 300,000 tourists a simple as that.It is not a big deal for most year. people but for some people it is.They don't Want their personal,financial Investments Gray said the cultural center would affect and information out there and it is their call_' the quality of life for-downtown residents. No action has been taken on these plans,which Gray has pointed out concerns that Bone, were filed with the bureau_ . -former president of the Robert Mayer Corp. that built the Hilton and Hyatt mega-hotels, Bone and board members could be fined by might have a conflict of interest.This the city$10 a day with a maximum of$100 lrnorning, Bone turned in his 700 form,which for not filing,said Roman Porter, executive %shows he has more then$1 million of director of the state Fair Political Practices investments in the Hyatt. Commission, which oversees these forms. The commission could later impose fines up "How can it not be in the back of his mind -to$5,000, Porter-said. Preference for the business to first'go to the Hyatt?"Gray said. "it is possible that the City Clerk Joan Flynn said she isn`t obligated Hyatt Is struggling and ... he may be trying to send a second notice of late filing to the to save his investment for all we know." bureau until Oct. 1. Bone said his interest in the Hyatt was not a McGrath said the bureau's delay could be Adrert(s - - -_ _ }v _ v�A 4 C�� \. 7 MKv:s�f C\�.� 1-0�.Ct��C'• __ .. ..-...,...a: 4 P11Rt-.PE3SAlefC) ITTt1'[p!t http_//www.ocregister.conVarticies/board-city-bone-2544817-bureau-forms 8/28/2009 .� —J -- -- ------�--- � ---��+ v �✓ aaa..v avaaaaJ auaaa�ta aal JV 141 t VVua t VLt�'t VVftV� VUL V4l1t 1V1111J... 1 U�V J Vi � rconsidered a breach of contract- ntact the writer: aburris@ocregister.com 949-553-2905 Advertisement t -s; 1�Y http://www.ocregister.comlafticles/board-city-bone-25--44817-bureau-forins 812812009 A6 'r'(-tUr:_......_,AY,AUGUST 29,2009, Fi UNTi ON BEACH MEPENDENT , W�V'V1�HBWDEPEN C- ITYSCAPES LOO for; o #� 'S ,B-,.u TI By OPIA ffmi4kim ' atGelnpts to,'contact the btirW but ieau," 1Cun der association brtb�eybames�latirrres ; ` did not zec>rive•atiy,forms turf"rr-. , spokesriman,said is an.& ' Residems' riea 'eat h�i}g`the.' own. ce ttp'As 'of late'Weed* ''•four Ibi assodadon'.�ias bpen'.1©o' town'Speciflc PlartspOlseiDld,�ilt�ual, ''bdatd members'had:Completed the into the issue, alpbg•�'w3rl�•resident center 'unoovered the,5� tidngtcw font,.•. Ric�iasdsbn"Gray.G Ayr id5e•discav Beach• Ma&zdng end, Msitofs• bu . Bureau I?resldent arid•C�iief Execur . -eyed ng bIne from thg bore had up- reau's •altaost $v�Aiot' 'ck iir'' tiye"Stove'�dne;said the delay vvas' °datgd'•their.forms in earrg jtrky.when cortfoaaing with the diy's'6qi k& of '' irety unimteatlonal.", V*ftt,it's• ''he'w;as•ti�yi�g to obtain,a.cbFF"of.a Inteiest Cbde. ' ` beea'c�ed2o•otirattehdop,i"ve're'al(' draft• stiz fox a pomWe':cultural the bureatt!s 14 boeid;;ia�naliers . ,going to'cbai lx"F}Otte said tenter M:iaagie�' in Park.' and president,are•,required the The emblem .w94 brought'up by C� 'said�he wanted'fi�;see the bu- . citys Conflict of iieresf ,code to Amidddi 'add•t4i'Hund*bn•Beach 'resits forms to•check ii`•Boae`had,any complete a 1?oma 70Q;Statement: o'f '�DewntoWnResidentsAssn. ;' sigaiflcapt'hiancial'fnt, . ;. . " the,the Economic.Interest• it wktht the ".The. V:unftpn eac,}i".Down- hotels' - soz le tag'"Gzay claimed City ae�,'The:fois�i8 A•to d6dd'se' -tom•-R iidents'Assn.) •is•odnceined ;wuWd be a coti&6It of ez.. arty fuu3ncial' 'gac� 'q�dne ,t t. napatal disclosfri�A''gorins lime $gDz •said') s' ad4-irireJEIWsn April 1.The'code is o'$i� esd'ozi° ndt 1Se ,�d tlespi'te•ztumer t11e; :• egeti�q'Ft�sgrt;fic•:Spa.in 'other city ofHds;ls by t&stare; ac}s seq ;frgm flm tatty�de&l of'- dowon `t 4 •. 4 , . . City offidals said therivade.senerai. fice'to die vlat eting and toz's Bti� crem.,a'.ctinfii 'Of ihterest��fot lei focal 2 j 'Nesday,Aug.26, 2009 ORANGE COUNTY o uns 'S T E V E B.O,H E. ..iHlllSd[".C.CfILCr fU liB��LFitl R RE S t R'E.N F, P�rp k,Mso oil tl(e,.;boars1. C E 0-OF Y�4Qj` Cr OlY1Or�llll J6y - H U_NT1 HGTON F efff Of, dlicryl, Ph�psbufua11late _'8 E A C H ® M-A R K E 7:t N G $ 1t6f1 tl GiO1 E =. _0141-sclo: ToRS: �UR.EA.U. Te 11; jt�g , fofms: fifiliff Y arativn.crtfictan froin: vYta�o' . i��h�aso;a��a ,Wki4; siie-a �}�,�r��„ ' Cit toying e's coneRt 1111i 111 ®I] anel's S i nailcial invetments;Bp av r , p i of the:12ubr~rb Mayer- �;�liab;} � 'E delay-is o-versi r;_but nrie_ IWO._And_VY64__ _or ` i holds pgine�1n&nL1 e8� resxdent daia�s.:caneern _ `Itradems ibat it would be hard fbrxgprb over-C90's inve tIl1LI1t.S: ' sent the hotels on the(downtown)group-... - when he:_h_as-one big"fish lAe-jq still signif - icati lve�dpyth,"`fysalcl:$oiaesa3ii By aeuNot eluRais = f3' THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER it18weff knoWnthitheib still coimeCtedL6 -the HYA4 bul 3s-not a conflict of interest. HUNTINGTOiN-BEACH •The eity's tourism The city 4j;W6 otqce ijadcontacted the bureau is almoat five months late in filing bureau f b"ree -twm-in;April a1 rt- the financial didelosure fouls that have been formrt;=A dfi+iit tg f'ilerk- in.Lugar sa1fLB'of i}a>i leacies' espvndec3f ques- regiested by tfie�eity three f since`the flora aiidut:whether the'ageng _ 4pril deadline,officiate said , The head of the ifunthngton Beach Mar en Apt:}e�`afise-it is_adid cd at�pr�zflt Wting and Visitors.Bureau and 14 board 66C-f W b e osiers are regtuh ed by a contract with - - her city to file documents known ais Forth_:- - reau's viEe Yeald nt 00 that disclose financial investments. Bone and ' - _ :cot>fd {o �e�- the 0 a' St '`aua7ritifln=o ; 'bO e f`ortns are often used to determine � �'� ontifcts of Interest with elected officials $100 for not filing,said Roman Porter,:ex i ecutive director of the state Fair-Political tua h_as city council members, planning - o o>t}ers,#tie ciiy tiw4gr rand city Practices Commission, which oversees thoP - these-forma The comimisdon could later Stdve-Bone,president and CEO of the I Itnjose.fines up to$5j0M,Porter oAid- LIrvaau,said the delay was an oversight. j City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said `It was one of those= I the bureau'8 delay could be.consWened a _ things that iv a slip-in breach'of conttaet.- Some City 40on ieil , tine cracks;" said line, members said that-as long its the bureau .who becan a bureau_ = complies quirk,they are not concerned_ fief in Se i Groy i�em*dashe r_d with Bone over a P �$•, stizdythe bureau oomn'Wd9nedfo- t d- ,i# 'was�x't -intentional. . - We wfil rill comg�." ! er the economle impacts of bullding.a-cul- tural center on downntown's bnlypark.The �he.l3ureau is a'pri �• plans call for a arts theater 6npr9ot;that wfas I O g. �,,��(--,,..,•},,y,���j.,.1 i�d!ck _ and underground'parking structure for In.•:x+�ua.+w+uajll ' llCkz- _ 1 narning tile-city Surf the centcr.that,Per-year, could getne�rate _ My rt7.S;i1.and receives $iX million-a year and attract- about 10 percent.of a hotQ1 tax SOQ,000'!vurists. Gray said the center ®�'';to _market the d I wo(dd-affect the quality of'life for-doh g I f :town resldents.No action-has been#:� q:: and members include . t ut"s 8_ a on these plans. sigiilfic�pt_connmuiiitj� _= , '-• r lmayor 4eidn Bohr attd Councilman Ian tfie plef :.suc'h as Dea11 Hansen said the city has fnacle efforts in 7br#pniui<e pArt 9f t.(ne -' - the past to have fewer boards and commis-. inuslc-, Jan &-- _ sions fill out these forms because it kids bin- bhaWgag I I t dered pedplo from volunteeriing- _ -ices CONTACT THE WR6TERt 949 5532905 or ' �'acific- n_Pacific-_. 3 '_ . t~6 aburrls�ottegistercom WXY and-tk. -' i z :e Tub QQU661Y ER [Monday,August 24, 2009 These forms are often used to determine conflicts of interest with elected officials Tourism bureau 5 such as City Council members, Planning Commissioners, the city treasurer and city months late on attorney. Steve Bone, president and CEO of the bureau disclosure forms said the lateness in filing was an oversight. "It was one of those things that was a slip in the cracks,"said Bone who became the Huntington Beach bureau's chief Iast.September. "It wasn't Marketing and visitors Intentional. We will all comply." Bureau was reminded 3 The bureau is a private, nonprofit group that was Instrumental in nicknaming the city times- by clerk's office about Surf City U.S-A.and receives 10 percent of forms due April 1 . a hotel tax to market the city. Board members include significant community players such as Dean Torrence, part of the By ANNIE BURRIS music legend Jan &Dean, and Michael Gagnet with Makar Properties, which Is The Orange County Register building Pacific City on Padfic Coast Highway and the senior center in Central Park.Also HUNTINGTON BEACH—The city's tourism on the board is former mayor Shirley bureau is almost five months late in filing Dettloff, Cheryl Phelps with the Hyatt,Margie financial disclosure forms that have been Bunten with Golden West College and J-D_ requested by the city three times since the Shafer with the Hilton_ April deadline,officials said. The late forms have drawn criticism from The Huntington Beach Marketing and downtown resident Richardson Gray, who Visitors Bureau's presidentlCEO and 14 wrote a letter to the city saying he's board members are required by a contract concerned about Bone's financial with the city to file documents known as Too investments.Bone was president of the forrns that disclose financial Investments_ Robert Mayer Corp.that built the Hilton and Advs�tseiiai�t 0 Day Uial Only # �5 TotEd UVE11 '1 8)6 6 7 43 4-1172"S Print Powered By I rmatE?lTamlo8' httn-/lwww ncrPuicter cc►m/articlPc/t�ity-hnmai�-f�rmc-25�9S�iFi-hnraP-ham^ ace dteacvm Hyatt mega-hotels and still holds some Some City Council members said as long as financial interest in the Hyatt, the bureau complies quickly, they are not concerned_ "it seems that it would be hard to represent the hotels on the (downtown)group ... when "I'm not losing any sleep that they filed it he has one big fish he is still significantly late," said Councilman Don Hansen. involved with," Gray said. Gray recently clashed with Bone over a study Bone said it is well known that he is still the bureau commissioned to consider the connected to the Hyatt but it is not a conflict economic Impacts of building a cultural of Interest. center on downtown's only park .The plans call for a performing art theater and The City Clerk's office had contacted the underground parking structure for the bureau three times in April about the forms, center that could generate$4.5 million a Assistant City Clerk Robin Lugar said. year and attract about 300,000 tourists a year_ Bureau leaders responded with questions about whether the agency was exempt Gray said the center would affect the quality because it is a private company but did not of life for downtown residents. follow through with requiring the board to file, said Donna Mulgrew,the bureau's vice No action has been taken on these plans, president of marketing_ which were filed with the bureau_ Hone and board members could be fined by Mayor Keith Bohr and Hansen said that the the city$10 a day with a maximum of$100 city has made efforts in the past to have for not filing,said Roman Porter, executive fewer boards and commissions fill out these director of the state Fair Political Practices forms because it has hindered people from Commission,which oversees these forms_ volunteering_ The commission could later Impose fines up to$5,000-Porter.said_. "i do not think they are all that Important for non-elected officials," Bohr said_"For some It City Attorney Jennifer McGrath said the is just too much private infotmation for them bureau's delay could be considered a breach to want the public to be able to access and of contract- therefore they will choose not to serve on board or commission." Advedbenwa ,LTOtJ�y 0 Icy lam I` tO Gymat Print Powered By Format:DYfla '" httn-t/www ncrntvictPr rnmlarti�lPcl�ity-hnrPan-fnrmc- -5�9�fiFi-h�nP-hnar R/?�/� �3 4 VIM r sen said requiring the board of a private ty to file the forms "seems like over- ching.° Contact the writer: aburris@ocregister.com or 949-553-2905 Advertisement i Aawn %Culcn er reen Lawn ITS" the year.. GROWI Gardeners` Ghoioe NC i four of troettcictawtiexaade.a1. At Print Powered By IN ForMatR)Ma"0S,1 I hftn•!lwww nr.rPuicter��m/arti�lPcicity-MirPati-fi�rmc-7.S�9SFiFi-h�nP-h�arri R/2413ong • # q pFY OF HpN GION 8 #t Z PUBtKH04 PUBUt HFgRlN6 FORM HOUL/MUR f c 'M'E"D#" TV W1 4 NOTICE tS HEREBY GIVEN THA a ounC w_pl hold its Public eQ Hoarine on the 2009-2010 rrneival of tSe iunfington Beacti Hotet/,Motet Business Improvement District at its met tln scbeduled on.Se temboer.21 at 6:00 PM soon hereafter at the.Nuntin on Be ry C. en er, a n, ree ounc am ers s roQ-re e a ng an us s mprQvemen ea a approved by City Council In limlutiori No 2009-46 as re-printed below(: RESOLUTIONl:N0.2009-46 A RESOLUTION OF Fill:CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTiNBTQN BEACH DECLARING THE 6II7CS ItTtENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSW4N1T FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004=2010 WITHIN THEM" QTON BEACH HOTEL/MOTEL BUSINESS iWAOVEW_9T DISTRICT WHEREAS;the California Leesiaturet in adopting 16-Parking and.Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets_apd Hlghways Code-§36500-et sep-) found thaf cities are authorized to levy assessments on busihe"is y� in order to promote economic revitalization-and tourism,create jobs,attract 7g _ new businesses and preventerosion of business districts;and. ia -L The California found that cities are authorized to levy assessments on businesses wfilch benefit from those improvements anif wr<tivaties;and A sizeable majority of the hotel and motet buiiriesses within the Cit of _ Huntington Beach requested that the City Council commence prbceedlttQ's under-ifie.Parking and Business improvement Areataw of 1989 to establjsb a-hotel @nd motel business'benefft area.wfthln'the City -of Hunthi Banat and to Tevrr a special assessment-,to promote tourism and tourist elated events;apd - _ tfr6 eft_Coupol Tormed a business Improvement_area, known as Me HuntiggtoA.Reach'Hotel/Motel'Business knprovement=District (the 'D!s- tsfct% hj the.passage of OrQtnSnce Np.3569 on August_19,1002_ The z dine_has come to continue the e4stence of the-DtsfNct for.*scaa��l_ kir year 2(M9-2010 by yfng assessments on those_businesses,that benefit from the itini;and - =TAe Dtsh#ct s Advisory Board-ha's Prepared pad filed it% the'City Clef% F, _— , an "Annaba—Report/Operating Budget-2008-2009 Fiscal Year to Data'.and `Proposed Budget for Mcai Year ZOW2010'(i;64ectiveIy,'Annual Report') n and- NOW,THEREFORE, BE f -RESOLVED that the-City Council of the Gitil..o ` -_Z" 1-fI gtonBead-does hereby resolve-astditows SEC$fON 1,The City CoundU-h!k ap oves'tha Annual Report filed tag by"'.he'Adirisory Board In the City Cleric`s of(I&-sttachedbereto-as, ) rlbft a-and ineor orata herein by this..tefeteAyb„wM4h iacltides i proposed ` 1 be4gat for r1scat Year 2009-ZQto and ides tioA of ft. improvements andacifirltfesto be provided for -f�caf Yeas 2W9 10: SECTION`&To Levy and-eoffect assessments QMW the"0tstrict area- Fiscal Year.2W9-2010 la-the-amount of Med hota-and motel oierni g(* --- roorh stays In hotels and motels Usted In-Exhibit'B attached-heroto and ttf 1n�oiAW herein by this reference._ ' ait3 : S11CWlt-3:�The type-or types-of lniprovemeats a nd:activlleaproposed tb be funded by the tevy of assessments on bustrlessez within tfie busineszr oifa E t 4rea _ore hr "16ft h►iDr ; sPeciftod- ,A. attached hereto--and }nto►porated hdreki-Qy-thisaeferance " r a _be _ be ore-the ( Oouncif oa # - September ,at 6--00 p.1a.,`pr as $ oon thetnafter as thts Matt may-be heard,fn-the'Co4ricd Chambers"ot the'My_Hall,20DO Main Stree Wntington 8e tdi,--Cafafor mii�-at-which.time tfte:COW4-_wtU-hear i Grterested- persons:fot,or against lsvjdng if,the assessment,_end th fwafslrH+g Af`specified-� pes of improiromentr nr AcffvlUes Protests rfia Toe evade ofaHy Gin tirrR!fr ' U written idratl be tied with the-C"I gatk at or before the Uak-fixed-for the headat and-coin"_suffidait taUon to veiffy:busfiess.,ow9ershtp and validato the-parlicyla( protest._Arty protest pertaining-to Qie "delartty pi-IlA diucy-of procr"iCs shag be ip wrltang add shag Clearly fortlr:tbe,frregulertty w defect-to-tgAtdr the oblectfop fs:made'The-cKY Cobudi'may we is aunt in-_ taw-toria or-wtitmit-0 ady ai 90'protest:end at the pu , rt+Tnorr defects<1ar t�e�- dam.A aTtftteh)pro - ruiy..fie wltiidram+a-ha'>rrU1n8'at ally ticA+a�a_tfis cohcAtslort•af- . �Snbdt.hearing net forth ybove. Itwiffen protests•orp tetetved by Thu gtvaefi of-bNakteisas_wt#thm itht;:Dfshlcf,-Which-am Day SOT or Uire. the#Dial aisesmecats to be loofa¢; 0,0: rtfk►, cceedlags to kf�:fhtf proposed assesssaent sbatt.be.tak49 dor a:paiRrd of one' r troryi data$f.Yhd frf_i4 majority pfobest by.the City Cowtctl the ma = k Aaty aPhW-the-f+alelsh '"of A 4 d_type or Types- otaro6nts or>9ctivlttyy witftin th6. thuyg typeb.of_knpro Ar beirieb ar fiCittlttl6SeKatt Re e� kfated - _ - hig art y: acted prow -rw cc 0 looweqtj by-caifslirq:pfLt regofilti0 "ot- tQrrtton tube pvbpilmd Dose j (A ngvfsPli*it gnrfeiat chculatlan et.teds�se if days=befetdtfii=vubdo fd`6.-Firrttter jhfiorrieaUon-regardi 1h, pi olid=busiiess emeat df;bi4 may be_ojttalytd of Ole unting(On 8eatcJi t ltyr-Hai --Y— Mon-s*46% turn tigtoa fleach, 1paHf 92G3s_teldpho �4 T $w�*$$2 kofh ilia Huntifigt8n Beach Coafale�ce art y4ft4pre j9ureau, f 3011 Kfattt net,S ate?A&ftu(tbtlgtrin�abck;;CA 9264k(714)8G93492 _ ; CTQQ9t Y.Tkgork s7iapp fiaR R eatnpfete copy iff this resohsNoh VA df tisfeatiga by- may to each�Pwud @c Lists area-*' a a seven df MAIM Use Council'}gdaolioa of.tlefsrasolatloA -S 2- 0 GJ%ls revowtiob shiku take Wed 4nmik4tataly,upoA."optl6m" i"ASSED'Wo ADOPTER by_:the Colt=Co-undt-of ilia City of fhtAHttgtbh i stint@ at a rvwe aieetlt thereof ktd.od the 17th drfy of August 2DO9._ !! The-es cost-it pprrovldin the kpptovefa8iits Wind actleltlea fof fiscal t PeaT Z6tO is$715.4 = -Li exhibits referaticed ahi'Ke are'avalKlo fa the off ed-of file Cft Cterte o[Wp4ii-ro est"by GatttAg-�ltridpe Sffhaae Prelbct Maize or,'at (7 9755I8s or 8rrou riretty'a.rle6stta a}�6t{pJ/www. stlrfctyfib or�tioverttmem/AHenSta>/' utitts{rediiuAHrigtoa ifeachIndependent Septoml:er3,2009 _ ----085-784 Q _ Victor, General Manager 777 Motor Inn General Manager Beach Inn Ken Patel, General Manager Best Western Huntington Ted Chen, General Manager Best Western Regency Mike Azad,General Manager Comfort Stephanie T.,General Manager Extended Stay J.D.Shafer Hilton General Manager Hotel Europa Mr.King Sun,General Manager Hotel Huntington _ Kevin Patel f Howard Johnson General Manager Huntington Suites Lisa Phi,General Manager Huntington Surf Cheryl Phelps Hyatt Mr.Travin Patel,General Manager Ocean View Mr.Darahan Shah,General Manager Pacific View Marco Perry Shorebreak Mr.Sam Patel,General Manager Starlight - Mr.Jitendra Barot,General Manager Surf`n Sands { e n�y•IaF�..�. ` , ... ;, :: i i r '� � s+ .•��� _.._ ` <.. .1a t^.rA r r • • V 1 ti a r r T - z VAL "livaralulo-Ir « • 1 rl • • ♦ 1 aY4. C ..A_..�.... ....:... .''..:.. M...r.': .- :.._..x}...c.x ..'�.'+.::. '�... 3 1,. ,°'- �t• _z} ;a x3.2 ° f� - r rr : :M, 1 • • :::r F IC:,, ! '�! r t i s /a>: yLt 1 t< 1 , � ra'- �+•. ! _;.o ( -r. s ✓ 1':� ? �i} Ix< / '.s'•a4:: i;;P�.-iwt MUM �'L 1.s•+. j•♦_v'f!t a ti � • ^n°' x1w ji.. t"rr• r... K•V S �` !' ' , r ' r. 1 n r ei r* r »'4+'H'4:!7 �f F x....-.....+..._...:..».•,,,� c.,rw..w_ir.. ...f_....:6.0 1 �!"-z ,y.::.. - ! _. .:1 _ _ `` _ _ .-fxvx'"'-i��-'�� .... :... .. a ......:..•...a. .....:�.... .... : .. _.::: _. ., .. .,, ,, ._t 7, h a6 :t. i)�. ,.Y r,'a.:'y.i�"s-'Sn..C. GGI/ _... _..•.,.... - t.....a-...._...<.....:..-t.,Jv_L..4•c.�_•.ts. .. _ - �� _ d?�ir!'�'ti�f'�:Gi '..ae2',r>•r_}.S'.�.t¢ N.a'�i?...a�:.._.._-t.5... .,.....i`_.._._..._?t.G...-.u._..._.. ..u! ..•. .......,.1. r.. '" � ,l •2 _ � ...�� a Ir^i%� • : • « ,�` •L f 1 .. -,�. ;;j_ .ck:.l; -....� } 1 .• :.yc r^T"�'^Tr,:aetric ...>.:<-S:•r�.,•e .; , ._.+ :.e .:.•..z.�.: Y ... ..... ;c.. 1 '.,. iw si ..rr;.7..t r- !" i+r er. M ;•9r > 1 _' 1s ti 1.'°iJK' r r t 1 i.y `2 , ,. y. ."._ •r,� as M1 1 1 •r •... �'T...::.V. yJr� tl:.;.:::..::Y.'t.:.'iT.' �._.e�. r .... :....r.!>:...a_._++;^e•...i.4....__l.a_.: .r..." a_.._ ... _: ti t ._.1 tz'..C3.Y•.�.''sa_:C/1 `T'.� R{a'r_tji,: tis�:A. ..�...,_C-!- ..1.:7f.�i :._`"...:.:rr<'n.•.oS.::..-NrN...u.. .at�...y...�`:'�. _�..,:._ ....._r.:.. :.. .... .::' sp�:.� :..t�•�-, J._f_�..'-..ta.�.�yS�?: • • • • :• • : ■dL1'ii5c: • ill' •a .:_ �•..•,.... 1.:: ..-� a �•a�? J r i"us,.T -• rr+I U _. { x y' D;:r.. _,J.;r�r -t rC�)ti.c...�;_..i:Cy4:•?f_...c.?S..tLiG���.n_. .r..,f"' .. ..}...:; ; ._...:.. _ .t _ _.- _ 'r,vi r .-. :: .. :.::e�,.}'�.'d: (••0. .: .:...:tel: HI - .:••- . ••:L�`.. •w' ::+i :ol."'?.:•a:•1..cf.l.r.,.t...�.,y..,. .t�.. -}� j i 1 .;.: .. ,�t ..1.:.- b ..ii,:: ^';- :'.r:r:"_,3`!a:':::;'a.h9s�ii�..�. ME • n�; CLYii1. •L�'1'• 's�' _ y�•- r. 1 h.t lV s •: •1• _:• • •. 11 'fir •== }-' �'L.'• " � _ 'J•< _�:•--+•',r'':'17. air:•- a k' t t 1. .< 1. .1 r t w1':,�"?�•«�:°,c^�] <r iy ....,.:•�...}a,..Sdt7./b��1ati:r::rhti.,�„,, S ! - � .; '.. a, x-c r _l. .-.'.. '- s -r •` _ t-':..S _ ,r-a: -'�•• :• .:..!:!;i^FJ!•7••''r'.:....,�••r� _ra. I! _...: .. ..:• ;{:. 1 __ :4 1 - -::a•tl;.erv::: ._-�'e:'Yi' i_`;• koe�.-9 �...l. w:.... '._J...... ..t_. ., :a.a_. «. r.<,..,....,,:1.. ! 1...... ..:. .....:.. _. -. 4 ...... _ 1jr ..!-..::.. #: ..2:.k. :.�la '.a. . -.•tr..rsw: t •1 •. • • •1 1 • •1 « • 1 tt 1• ♦ � 1 t'. Y •'P .... )� 1 _ x+: ra, I^.� '�� 3 »a.: .J. '._ F S't �' s 7• 1_ t ira 5'{ 1 ,.' } _"'l .cA !�s--ndsMot—el 1,00 •: • • • - ® i• RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane 9208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com August 19, 2009 HAND DELIVERED Jennifer McGrath City Attorney City of Huntington Beach City Hall Fourth Floor 2000 Main Street .Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Steve Bone, President and CEO,and all Members of the Board of Directors Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest,To Be Filed with the City Clerk. Dear Jennifer: From the attached three pages in the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau's (Bureau) contract with the City, dated September 18, 2006 and expiring October 1,2011 (and two pages in the accompanying Request for City Council Action)(Contract),you can see that Steve Bone, as President of the Bureau, and all Members of the Bureau's Board of Directors (Board Members), each are required annually to file a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700s) with the City Clerk. Per the enclosed February 19,2008 biannual City Council review and action;the application of the City Conflict of Interest Code to the Bureau was reconfirmed, including setting out the due date for the filing of Form 700s as April I't each year. From this information,you also can see that Steve Bone and the Board Members for 2009 are still required to file Form 700s with the City Clerk. Finally,I have attached a copy of Section 2.100.065 of the City Municipal Code,which states in part that"(a]ny such person who fails to file a Statement of Economic Interests as provided in this section shall automatically vacate the office." As of my personal visit yesterday afternoon to the City Clerk's office, the City Clerk's staff informed me that they have been attempting to obtain Steve Bone's and the Board Members' 2009 Form 700s for the last few months,with no success to date. In any opinion, Steve Bone's and the Board Members' refusals, for nearly.five months beyond their due date,to provide the City Clerk with their 2009 Force 700s,are a flagrant disregard of their 1 codified ethical and legal obligations to the City, and its residents, property owners, taxpayers, and voters. _ Please let me know as soon as possible when I can obtain copies of Steve Bone's and the Boards Members' 2009 Form 700s_ This information is crucially important to me for a number of reasons. 1. As I understand it, Steve Bone and the Board Members are some of the leading proponents, if not the absolute foremost proponents, of the cultural center proposed for Triangle Park(Proposed Center) in the June 12, 2009 draft of the Downtown Specific Plan (June DTSP) and its accompanying Draft Environmental Report of July 20, 2009 (Draft EIR). 2. 1 believe that Mr. Bone led the developments of both the Hilton Hotel (Hilton) and the Hyatt Hotel(Hyatt), located on Pacific Coast Highway near downtown Huntington Beach_ 3. Should Steve Bone continue to hold a financial stake in either the Hilton or Hyatt or both,in any opinion, this financial stake would create a substantive conflict of interest for Steve Bone in championing the Proposed Center. This conflict would arise from Steve Bone's compensation from the Bureau, provided in large part through City taxpayer dollars, and the direct benefit he would receive in the increased value and increased revenues of the Hilton or the Hyatt or both,expected to be derived from the increased occupancy at downtown hotels flowing from the Proposed Center as a new major tourist attraction. From the Contract, you can see that the Bureau,and the Huntington Beach Hotel/Motel Business Improvement District that the Bureau administers, together receive approximately twenty percent(20%) of the City's room taxes, a total amount estimated to be$1,160,000 for fiscal year 2006-2007. 4. If Steve Bone does have a conflict such as the one described above, this conflict is even more pronounced due to the widespread opposition to the Proposed Center at Triangle Park,from downtown residents,property owners, taxpayers,and voters. To date,nearly 5,000 Huntington Beach residents have signed a petition opposing the location of the Proposed Center at Triangle Park. The vast majority of these residents live downtown. 5. H Steve Bone does have a conflict similar to the one described above, this conflict would be greatly exacerbated by the massive transfer of wealth, for which the construction of the Proposed Center at Triangle Park would provide the catalyst. I estimate that the loss in property values for residences in the north end of downtown,within a several block radius of'Triangle Park,would reach at least tens of millions of dollars in total,if the Proposed Center were built.at Triangle Park- Directly mirroring this loss of residential values, the coastal hotels near downtown, including the Milton and Hyatt,should have increases 2 s. in values also reaching the tens of million dollars in total, if the Proposed Center is built, caused by their improved revenues and occupancy rates flowing from the Proposed Center. 6. On account of this potential conflict of interest for Steve Bone, and possibly comparable conflicts for other Board Members,Steve Bone's and the Board Members' 2009 Form 700s should be made public at least one month before the Planning Commission's vote on the June DTSP and Draft EIR, currently scheduled for September 22,2009. To repeat myself,please let me know as soon as possible when I can obtain copies of Steve Bone's and the Board Members' 2009 Form 700s. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray cc: Joan Flynn,City Clerk(Hand Delivered) 3 GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made- and entered into by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and the HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE AND VISITORS BUREAU, a California non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as"GRANTEE." WHEREAS, CITY desires to grant funds to GRANTEE to perform promotional services, and provide a conference and visitors bureau in the City of Huntington Beach;and GRANTEE has agreed to accept such funds and to perform such services; NOW,THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and GRANTEE as follows_ 1_ GRANT OF FUNDS CITY hereby grants to GRANTEE a sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of CITY'S Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections each month, payable monthly, following collection of same. 2. PUBLIC PURPOSES LIMITATION/DURATION OF AGREEMENT All funds granted herein shall be used-only for the promotion of the-City of Huntington Beach, to attract visitors and convention business, to provide information to persons interested in doing business in the community, to represent CITY on related regional activities such as the Film Commission, to operate a conference and visitors bureau to benefit CITY, and to perform all services as set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein_ 06-33314145 I In addition to the tasks identified in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A), GRANTEE shall perform the following tasks: • Attend the City Council's Downtown Economic Development Committee meetings. • Conduct status meetings with CITY'S Director of Economic Development no less than four (4) times per year as mutually agreed upon between the Director Economic Development and the President of GRANTEE. • Provide monthly written status reports to CITY'S Director of Economic Development_ Until no longer required by CITY'S Conflict of Interest Code, the Board and President shall annually complete Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest, and file the completed form with the City Clerk. 3. TERM; ANNUAL EXTENSION;TERMINATION This Agreement shall commence on October 1, 2006- The initial termof tMs Agreement is five (5) years. Commencing October 1,2011, and on the 1st of October of each succeeding year thereafter, this Agreement shall be annually extended for a new one(1)year term. All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and worlcmanlike manner. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause, upon one (1) year prior written notice to the other party. In the event of termination, all finished and unfinished documents, exhibits, reports, and evidence shall, at the option of CITY, become its property and shall be promptly delivered to it by GRANTEE. CITY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to GRANTEE, in the event the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that 06-33314145 2 17_ ENTIRETY The foregoing sets forth the entire Agreement between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized officers 200� HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFERENCE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, A AND VISITORS BUREAU, a California municipal corporation of the State of corporation: California`bo�tst,A� Mayor print name / ITS:(circle one)Chairrn residers ice President AND City Clerk By: APPROVED AS TO FORM- print name J_ ITS: (circle one) Secretary/ ief Financial Ci y Attorneys 1Zi ffice st_Secretary-Treasurer �9 ]_ �' .,q ITIATED AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Director of Economic Deve ment City Administrator 06-33314145 9 R Council/Agency Meeting Held: 9 ��" P-7 ffl 5= 29 Deferred/Continued to: t3Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ DeiiW( ' :_� C�/City Clerk's Signat&et -I A W .fit Council Meeting Date: 9/18/2006 Department ID Number- ED 06-38 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH --- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITY C NCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: PEN�OPE LBRETH-GRAFT, PA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: STANLEY SMALEWITZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Approve Five Year Grant Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau Beginning October 1, 2006 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On May 15, 2006 the City Council approved a five (5) year grant agreement with the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau with funding set at ten percent (10%) of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections each month beginning October 1, 2006_ Funding Source: Funding for the Grant Agreement is included in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-07, Account No. 10080101.74020 Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Clerk of the attached five year Grant Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau for 10% of the TOT revenues, beginning October 1, 2006_ Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Grant Agreement and direct staff accordingly. - Analysis: The Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau (HBCVB) was formed in November 1989 to represent the community in the solicitation of leisure travelers, tour groups and conferences_ Over the years, the HBCVB has developed annual Huntington Beach Visitors Guides, Meeting planners' kits, multi-lingual brochures, a website, and numerous other marketing materials to further the goals of the City relating to conferences and tourism. During the current 2005-06 fiscal year, the Bureau was able to complete the following: ® Development of four specialty press kits for birders/naturalists, families, seniors and couples ® Launch of the new filming venue website "www.filmhuntington beach-com" Marketing with Surfing America to host the '06 Junior World Games and '07 World Games �_i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 05-38 • Printing a new Dining Guide in a marketing alliance with the H B Restaurant Association • A full-page co-op ad in the California Visitors Guide • A 76-page color Huntington Beach Visitors Guide with 150,000 copies distributed • The most comprehensive special events calendar at-"www.surfcityevents.com" • Management of a comprehensive digital photo library of 1,000+ images • Operation of a weekday Visitor Center responding to more than 1,300 walk-in visitors; 1,500 telephone calls from out of town potential visitors; 900 requests from local residents; and 800 e-mail requests for information annually Through this five year Grant Agreement, the HBCVB anticipates that new funding will allow it to continue and expand the programs previously outlined as well as accomplish the following objectives: ® Expanded operations of a new Pier Plaza Visitor Center ® Completion of a local arts and community project for residents overnight visitors • Printing of Downtown Guide in an alliance with the Downtown Merchants Association The attached Grant Agreement requires either party to give (1) one year written notice to terminate said agreement without cause, and includes language that automatically extends the agreement in (1) one year increments each October subsequent to the completion of the initial (5)five year period_ On August 5, 2002, at the request of the City's hotels and motels, the City formed a Hotel/Mot�ti Business Improvement District (BID). Through this BID, an additional 1% levy is assessed on all overnight stays in Huntington Beach and given to the HBCVB. The 1% BID levy generates the same amount each year as this Grant Agreement for 10% of the TOT; and each will generate an estimated $580,000 for the fiscal year 2006-07, increasing each year as the local hotels also increase their business through better and coordinated marketing_ The BID funds, coordinated with the monies provided by the City in the attached Grant Agreement, will '-allow .the HBCVB to increase its advertising, marketing and public relations of Huntington Beach as a year-round, overnight destination_ Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachments}: 1_ Five year Grant Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the HBCVB for Fiscal Years 2006/07-2010111 -2- S/1120nr, 1-1-40 AAA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/19/2008 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-003 Analysis: State law requires the City Council, Planning Commission, City Treasurer, and City Attorney, among others,to file such Conflict of Interest Statements. The City Code acknowledges and broadens State law to also include those positions designated by the Council. Persons so designated are required to file a Statement upon assuming.their position; an annual statement each April 1, and a Statement upon leaving their position. The Code requires such persons to disqualify themselves from participating in decisions or influencing decisions in which they_havea conflict. The City's Conflict of Interest Code was most recently amended in 2005:Since-then, employee job titles and descriptions.have been added,deleted, and changed making-if necessary to update the Code. Desi hated emQbyees, boards,commissions,and committees are shown on "Exhibit B e Staff continues to review all employee positions for inclusion or removal from the list, and the City Attorney staff will be presenting ethics training sessions for all filers on:an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with AB.1234. Council policy requires the City Council, City.departments, and-all boards, commissions, and committees to formally review the City Code of Ethics- annually, during the month of January_ This Code-is not intended to supersede or invalidate any statute,-ordinance, or civil service rule or regulation.-A slight amendment to the Second Policy Section has been recommended to clarify the requirement of officials to comply with "local and" state law_ Strategic Plan Goal: C-2: "Provide quality public services with- the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the City is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall" Environmental Status: N/A Attachment Us : PaaP,NqmbJ0rNo. D-. 1. Resolution No.' ?p0g-(t9 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.lifomia Amending its-Conflict of Interest Code. 2_ City Code of Ethics_ E9.2 -2- V712008 9.51 AM Resolution No.2008-09 BOARDS COMMISSIONS AND COI1'1mirr1✓LS City Council Convention and Visitors Bureau Design Review Board Planning Commission CONSULTANTS Consultants shall be included in the list of designated officials and employees and shall disclose interests subject to the following limitation: The City Administrator may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a"designated position," is lured to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and this is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in-Section 5 above. Such written detenmination shall include a description of Consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The City Administrator's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. 18736 3 E9 . 19 EXHIBIT B February 19. 2008—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 10 of 14 (City Council) Approved the Amended Project Concept for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)Go Local Grant Program in Partnership with the Cities of Stanton,Westminster, and Fountain Valley to Conduct a Needs Analysis and Transit Connection Study—Approved the amended Go Local, Step One Project Concept overview to conduct a needs analysis and transit connection study_Submitted by the Director of Public Works. Funding Source: OCTA has allocated up to $100,000 for each Orange County local agency to study alternatives. City participation funds are not required and not anticipated to be needed to complete the study effort. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2008-08 Accepting $40,000 in Grant Funds from the Orange County Regional integrated Waste Management Department for Recycling and Public Education Programs—Adopted Resolution No. 2008-08, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Accepting Funds From the Orange County Regional Recycling and Waste Diversion Grant Program." Submitted by the Director of Public Works. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Revenue of$40,000 for recycling and public education programs is anticipated_ (City Council) Approved Project Plans and Specifications and Award Construction Contract in the Amount of$167,123.40 to Golden State Constructors, inc.for the Construction of Curb Access Ramps at Various Locations,MSC-453 and Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute Contract in a Form Approved by the City Attorney— 1)Approved the project specifications; 2)Accepted the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Golden State Constructors, Inc_ in the amount of$167,123.40 for MSC 453; and, 3)Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney_ Submitted by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Economic Development_ Funding Source: Funds in the total amount of$180,000 have been budgeted for this project from Community Development Block Grant(CDBG), FY 2007108, Citywide ADA Ramps,Account No._85782010.82300. The engineers cost estimate for this project is $170,000. (City Council) Adopted Resolution No_2008-09 Amending the Conflict of Interest Code Requiring Designated Employees and Members of City Boards, Commissions and Committees to File a Statement of Economic Interest; and, Reviewed and Approved the Amended City Code of Ethics— 1)Adopted Resolution No.2008-09, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Its Conflict of interest Code;"and 2) Reviewed and approved City Code of Ethics. Submitted by the City Attorney and the Deputy City Administrator. Funding Source: None. (City Council) Approved and Authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute the Trust Agreement with California Public Retirement System (CialPERS)to Provide Investment Services and Prefund Retiree Medical Benefits; Adopted Resolution No. 2008-11 Approving the Agreement with the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust(CERBT) Program; and, Adopted Resolution No. 2008-12 Delegating the Authority to Request Disbursements From the CERBT—1)Approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the California Employer's Retiree Benefit Trust Program (CERBT)Agreement and Election of the City of Huntington Beach to Prefund Other Post Employment Benefits Through CalPERS; 2)Adopted Resolution No. 2008-11, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving Agreement With the Califomia Employers Retiree Benefit Trust Program and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign Such An Agreement on Behalf of the City,-" 3) Adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington 2.100.065 Statements of Economic Interests. Every person appointed to a board,commission,of- committee designated by the City Courted resolution adopting the City's Conflict of Interest code,shall file a Statement of Economic Interests with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City Clerk. Statements of Economic Interests shall be filed upon taking office,annually no later than thirty(30) days after the date specified by law,and upon leaving office. Any such person who fails to file a Statement of Economic Interests as provided in this Section shall automatically vacate the office. (3391- "8) 2.100.070 Employment limitation. No person serving on any board or commission shall hold any full or part-time paid office or employment in the Huntington Beach personnel system while so serving, unless otherwise specified. (28966/87) 2.100.680 Duration of terms. Members shall serve until their respective successors are appointed and qualified The City Council shall have the power to fill any vacancies. Unless otherwise specified, terms of members of boards and commissions shall be four(4)years,staggered so that the majority of terms shall end in odd-numbered years following the election of four(4)council members and remainder of the terms shall end in odd-numbered years following the election of three(3)council members. (2896-w7) 2.100.085 Attendance. Any person appointedd to any city board, conunission,or committee shall automatically vacate the office upon a fifth(5th)unexcuwA absence during a calendar year or upon more than three(3)consecutive unexcused absences at any time during the term of office. Upon request of the absent member,each board,com ission,.or committee shall have the authority to determine whether an absence is excused The appointing authority shall appoint a successor to fill the Vacancy. (3124-12t91. 3776-9107) 2.100.0" ®pen meetings. All meetings of boards and commissions shall be open to the public unless subject to the closed session exceptions contained in the Ralph M.Brown Act(Government Code § 54950)_ (2896-6r87) 2.100.100 Rules. Each board and conunission may adopt such bylaws and rules as may be necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business,subject to approval of the City Council. (289&667) 2.106.110 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all boards and commissions,unless an ordinance enacted after the date of dfmsection establishes different requirements. (3124-1mi.3323-5r96) Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.100 2 Wine, Linda .m: Wine, Linda t: Thursday, September 03,2009 4.56 PM ®v: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley-, Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail)-, Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura -, Tom Livengood Cc: Hess, Scott-, Fauland, Herb-, Wine, Linda-, De Coite, Kim,- Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: FW. HBTomorrow's DTSP 9-01-09 comments Attachments: HST DTSP Comments 9-01-09.doc From: edkerins@netscape.net[mailto:edkerins@netscape.net] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:49 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: HBTomorrow's DTSP 9-01-09 comments Please forward to the planning commissioners. I'm sorry I was unable to stay to deliver HBT's DTSP comments on District 1 Tuesday night. However the comments are attached for your review. I was impressed with the range of questions and concerns expressed by the commissioners.I too have w M-cal the streets affected and tried to envision the type of units and density proposed. It just doesn't make scnst1 yne and I would be surprised if it made sense to you.. I would also be surprised if staff could adequately respond to all of your questions, provide you with tbe -u are seeking and allow time for public review in the short time left before the scheduled public You may wish to consider that doing the right thing should be priority no.L Thanks for all your hard work. Ed Kerins LLD SEP ,; 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT_ 1 t t HBT DTSP PC STUDY SESSION COMMENTS 9-01-09 ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO I WAS ASKED TO GIVE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS MY VIEWS ON A FUTURE VISION FOR DOWNTOWN. I SOLICITED IDEAS FROM MY HOME OWNER ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS AND HBTOMORROW BOARD MEMBERS. THE VISION WAS FOR A TOURIST AND RESIDENT FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS: CLEAN SIDEWALKS; PEDISTRIAN FRIENDLY WITHOUT THE CONGESTION AND UBSTRUCTIONS THAT KEEPS RESIDENTS AWAY; UPSCALE COMMERCIAL USES THAT WOULD ATTRACT RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS; THE REDUCTION OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS WHO'S SALES COME PRIMARILY FROM THE SALE OF ALCOHOL; AND OUTDOOR DINING WITHOUT BREATHING IN AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS. WHEN THE DTS PLAN WAS RELEASED WE FOUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT MEET OUR VISION. IT DOES MEET THE VISION OF THOSE WHO WANT TO INTENSIFY THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD FINANCIALLY BENEFIT FROM HAVING MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE BIGGER IS BETTER. OUR DTSP PLAN COMMENTS WERE: ENSURE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS DO NOT EXCEED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR BELLA TERRA II. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CALLS FOR 60 DU/AC AND 5 STORIES VERSUS 45 DU/AC AND 4 STORIES FOR BELLA TERRA II. WITH REGARD TO THE CULTURAL OVERLAY. THIS CONTROVERSIAL RECOMMENDATION APPARENTLY CAME FROM THE CONSULTANT - THERE IS NO RECORD OF A COMMUNITY MEMBER SUGGESTING THIS. WE RECOMMENDED THE PRACTICALITY, FINANCING, USAGE, LOCATION AND OTHER COMMUNITY SUPPORT QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED BEFORE A CULTURAL OVERLAY BE ADOPTED. HBT SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF A CULTURAL CENTER BUT CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO ITS IMPACT ON ADJOINING RESIDENTS AND INCONVENIENT LOCATION FOR HB RESIDENTS. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT HB RESIDENTS WOULD VOTE YES TO BUILD AND FIND SUCH A CENTER AT THIS LOCATION. OTHER HBT RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND LACK OF UPPER STORY SETBACK WERE ALSO IGNORED. PERHAPS THE EIR'S REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE COULD CONTAIN THESE PROVISIONS. HBTOMORROW HAS SUPPORTED THE PLAZA ALMERIA MIXED USE PROJECT, THE 31 ACRE PACIFIC CITY PROJECT AND THE BELLA TERRA II MIXED USE PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE BENFICIAL TO THE CITY, ITS RESIDENTS AND ITS BUSINESSES. HOWEVER WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE BECAUSE IT WILL INTENSIFY USES TO THE DETRIMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. IN SUMMARY, HBT BELIEVES THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND AT A MINIMUM DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: REDUCE INTENSITIES TO THE LEVEL OF THE BELLA TERRA II PROJECT WHICH IS ALREADY 50% HIGHER THAN EXISTING STANDARDS AND SECONDLY REMOVE THE CULTURAL OVERLAY FROM THE PROPOSAL. IT'S A BAD IDEA THAT WILL LEAD TO TIME CONSUMING AND EXPENSIVE LITIGATION AND PUBLIC DIfffCQ13E ntwuilt--�L ED KERINS HBT DTSP COMMITTEE MEMBER SEP Q 3 ?m Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. AT' r - Wines Linda Am: H BWacky4U@aol_com _ 1: Saturday, September 05, 2009 4:05 PM V: Wine, Linda Subject: SAVE TRIANGLE SQUARE My name is Debra Goode and I own a house in "Old Town" Huntington Beach_ PLEASE don't take away our Library and square. Sri many people use the library and can walk there rather than have to take a car and get to the huge library. I could on about the fact that it has been part of this community for many, many years but lately it is obvious that the leader of our town no longer care about preserving anything that is old and dear to us. 1 will be at the meeting on Wednesday. This is just terrible! Sincerely, Debra F SEP 082009 Huntington Beaci, PLANNING DEPT 1 1 Wine, Linda From: Wine, Linda Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 T-48 AM To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth; De Coite, Kim-, Fauland, Herb; Fritzal, Kellee; Hess, Scott; Mulvihill, Leonie; Smalewitz, Stanley;Villasenor, Jennifer,Wine, Linda Subject: FW: [HBTALK]An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath From: Blair Farley[mailto:blair@surfcitylocals.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:22 PM To: Wine, Linda;Fauland, Herb Cc: McGrath,Jennifer Subject: Re: [HBTALK] An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath ^_ ^^ 10 Can a copy of this be given to the PC asap please. ill!\`\"I iL� SAP Glair 15 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. On Sep 14, 2009,at 4:39 PM, McGrath,Jennifer wrote: The documents responsive to Mr_ Gray's request are available for inspection and/or copying at the front count City Attorney's Office_ Included in these documents is an open letter stating the City Attorney's position on th«, . Triangle Park_The documents will be available aft week_ Please advise if you will need additional time to review Jennifer McGrath From: Kim Kramer <kim@e-mailcom.com> To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Ismoon0d)verizon.net <Ismoon4@verizon.net>; hbtalk@bixby.oug <hbtalk@bixby.org>;CITY COUNCIL .Sent: Mon Sep 14 09:03:27 2009 Subject: Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Jennfer, We will be looking forward to receiving the documents. Thank you. Kim McGrath, Jennifer wrote: Kim - First, please note that City Council is not likely to respond as you have invited a Brown Act violation by your request Second, I never represented to you that I would release the confidential opinion_ I have consistently advised that I would i craft a public document for release_ Third, the title documents will be released via mail and can be made available at any time- Ili, the document I am drafting will be made available the same way. From: Kim Kramer<kim(ale-mailcom.com> To: McGrath, Jennifer Cc: Ismoon4(alverizon.net <lsmoon4(&verizon.net>; hbtalk', bixby.org <hbtalk(-Obixby.orq> Sent: Sun Sep 13 13:46:52 2009 Subject: Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath So, let me see if I have this straight: 1) We don't get to see the original opinion letter that you PROMISED we would see. 2) We don't get to see the revised opinion letter. 3) Your response to the Public Records Act will say "We are NOT showing you anything." and 4) You will prepare a public letter next week- I can only imagine how open and transparent that letter will be. When you release your public letter next week,where can we find that? en you release the title documents tomorrow, where can we find that? Kim ATTN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS - Keith Bohr, Don Hansen,Joe Carchio, Gil Coerper, .fill Hardy, Devin Dwyer, Cathy Green Why are there so many secrets with our city government? Why are the Huntington Beach residents excluded from bowing all the facts so that we can make informed decisions? In the name of openness and transparency,will you provide the City Attorney with a "waiver of privilege" so the residents of Huntington Beach can be see these secret documents? Will any of you respond to this e-mail and give us some feedback? 2 McGrath, Jennifer wrote: The title documents are being released tomorrow_ The confidential opinions will not be released to the public without a waiver of privilege from the City Council_ From: Kim Kramer <kim(abe-mailcom.com> To: McGrath,Jennifer Cc: Ismoon4@verizon.net <Ismoon4@venzon.net>; hbtalk0bixby.org <hbtalk@bixby.org> Sent: Sun Sep 13 13:22:48 2009 Subject: Re: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Thank you Jennifer. Where can we find the revised opinion letter that was released Wednesday,as well as the original opinion letter, so that we can compare the two and understand the revisions_ Also,can you please release the title search documents that you reference below that revealed the additional facts that required additional review. Respectfully, Kim McGrath,Jennifer wrote: I apologize for the delayed response. As you know, a title search revealed additional facts which required additional review. The revised confidential opinion was released Wednesday_ I will prepare a public letter next week. In addition, the response to the Public Records Act will be released Monday_ From: Kim Kramer <kim@e-mailcom.com> To: Linda S. Moon <Ismoon4@verizon.net> Cc: HB TALK<hbtalk@bixby.org>; HBDRA Board of Directors <kim@e-mailcom.com>; HBDRA Residents <kim e- mailcom.com> Sent: Sun Sep 13 12:43:19 2009 Subject: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath cc: City Council,Planning Commissioners, HBTALK, HBDRA and other interested parties Dear Jennifer McGrath, If you stand behind these words,then please release your existing Opinion Letter regarding the Measure C status of Triangle Park. The Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association has been asking for this document since May,2009. 3 In your meeting with me and other HB residents in May, 2009, YOU PROMISED us a copy of that Opinion Letter, or a new letter summarizing the contents of that Opinion Letter_ of today, you have NOT RESPONDED to my many e-mails regarding same, nor have you returned my _ny phone messages. It's been more than four months_ You have also not responded yet to a formal request submitted this month for a copy of this document under the California Public Records Act. Will you respond?Will you comply?The deadline is September 18th. The residents of Huntington Beach deserve openness and transparency in our city government and its elected officials-why are you not releasing this document as you promised you would? As an elected official whose job it is to "protect the community" and be "accountable to the electorate" PLEASE RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT AND RELEASE IT NOW BEFORE THE FINAL DTSP IS PUBLISHED !!! Respectfully submitted by: Kim Kramer Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association Linda wrote: p following message was received from City Attorney Jennifer McGrath. My distribution of its 416ntent does not indicate my support for the positions stated therein. Linda ToSent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 10.47 AM Subject: Time to let your opinions be heard! On `?-zresday, September 15,2009,the Charter Review Commission of the City of HB will be hearing public input regarding election issues. The meeting is at City Hall from 6 pm - 9 pm. The Charter is the Constitution for the City and has not been reviewed in several years. On Tuesday night,the Charter Review Commission is soliciting public input on if the City should have a directly elected Mayor, change the elected City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk to appointed positions, and other related election issues_Please try to attend and let them hear your thoughts. Invite your friends, neighbors, and co-workers as well! This is my (Jennifer McGrath's) Statement to the Orange County Register on September 10, 2009. I strongly believe the elected offices of City Attorney,City Clerk and City Treasurer should remain elected. As independently elected officials,each position is immune from inappropriate pressure and can better protect the community and the General Fund by establishing checks I balances with the policymakers. Both the Clerk and Treasurer have ;n elected positions for nearly 100 years. The City Attorney has been an elected position for over 40 years. 4 Currently, alI three elected officials are accountable to the electorate. Dilution of the right of the people to vote does not lead to better government. Under the current system, the City Clerk ensures transparency and the availability of the public records that belong to the citizens. The City Treasurer is able to receive and invest monies on behalf of the City to ensure the best possible return on investment and protection from inappropriate use of funds. And lastly,the City Attorney provides objective legal advice to avoid illegal or improper decisions. None of the previous Charter Review Commissions have recommended that the City Attorney become appointed. No initiative from the public has ever raised this issue either. Ironically, the only people that have placed this issue on previous ballots are current and/or former council-members. Lastly, each time the voters were given an opportunity to make the City Attorney position appointed,the voters have rejected the opportunity. As for the City Attorney specifically, over 55%of the voters in the State of California are represented by an elected City Attorney. As of November 2008,the following Cities have elected City Attorneys: Albany, Chula Vista, Compton, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Bernardino, San Diego,San Francisco and San Rafael. In fact, the voters of the Chula Vista elected to create an elected City Attorney as recently as November 2008_The ballot argument supporting the Chula Vista measure stated that "An independent City --- Attorney, chosen by the people, will be free to fight unethical-behavior and corruption in city government and be independent of Mayoral or City Council influence." hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby_org http://www.bixby_org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.orgimailmati/listinfo/hbtalk 5 Wine, Linda Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.comJ ��L� D t: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:20 PM HB TALK; HBDRA Board of Directors; HBDRA Residents Subject: [Fwd: An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath] SEP 15 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. To: HBTALK, HBDRA Board of Directors, HBT Board of Directors, HBDRA Res City Council Members, The Honorable Mayor Keith Bohr, Planning Commissioners, OC Register, HB Independent and Other Interested Parties, Our Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath was publicly posted on HBTALK below on Sunday 9.13.09. By Monday 9.14.09 the documents that we have been requesting now for four months are finally available_ They are linked below for everyone's review: http://www.e-mallcom.com/iobs/HB CITY ATTORNEY.pdf ,Cc ge I states that Triangle Park is, in fact, an official and legitimate park of Huntington Beach and subject to protection under Measure C. That is good news and this "park or no park" controversy is finally put to bed. However,Measure C has all sorts of exclusions when there is a library involved . . . so stay tuned_ FYI the 1917 deed to the city from the Huntington Beach Company has a covenant that requires Triangle Park to forever remain a public park. That is good news,however,page 2 of the city's document linked above states that this covenant was removed pursuant to a 1921 deed. That is bad news and means that commercial development on Triangle Park is now up for grabs to the highest bidder. Here's the controversy: The 1921 deed referenced on page 2 has been previously reviewed by our attorneys at Palmieri Tyler as well as other attorneys that are local residents and HBDRA members. The independent conclusion of all three attorneys is that the 1921 does NOT remove the deed restriction. Of course, this will most likely require the proverbial legal battle of The City of Huntington Beach vs The Residents of Huntington Beach_ Perhaps our Planning Commission and City Council will have the wisdom to avoid all of this litigation and listen to the Will of the people. I hope so. More than 5500 11I3 residents have signed a petition asking our city officials to respect the cultural and historic significance of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. NEXT UPDATE: "SAVE THE DATES" The Planning Commission is voting on the EIR and DTSP on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6th at 6:00 PNI. This is a Planning Commission meeting that you don t want to miss. It is going to be AWESOME!!! Planning Commission decisions will be made in "real time"and the public will be there in force to voice their opinions. The HBDRA is holding our second "RALLY AT TRIANGLE PARK"' on Sunday, October 4th at 2:00 PM. Everyone is invited including the press,print and broadcast. I will be speaking for about 20 bs"i- �� .' giving everyone an update on the situation. It's going to be a GREAT RALLY and I encourage you all to attend. I am sure the Mayor and City Council will be there as well as all of our friends from City Hall. I would like to extend a personal invitation to Mr_Steve Bone and the Board of Directors of the Marketing and Visitors Bureau. Thanks everyone. Kim Kramer Spokesperson Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association P.S. Your donation checks are arriving every day and are greatly appreciated. Please make your checks ($100 increments preferred; however all amounts gratefully accepted) payable to HBDRA Legal Fund and mail to: 412 Olive Avenue, Suite 616,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 PLEASE DONATE. WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL. SUPPORT. 2 d -------- Original Message -------- Subject:An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Date:Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:43:19 -0700 From:Kim Kramer <kim@e-mailcom.com> To:Linda S. Moon<lsmoon4@verizonnet> CC:HB TALK <hbtalk@bixby.org>, HBDRA Board of Directors <kim@a,e-mailcom.com>,HBDRA Residents <kim@e-mailcom.com> References:<OKPXOOIZI8ULMH 1 J(i�vms l 73013.mailsrvcs.net> An Open Letter to City Attorney Jennifer McGrath cc: City Council, Planning Commissioners, HBTALK, HBDRA and other interested parties Dear Jennifer McGrath, T� ou stand behind these words, then please release your existing Opinion Letter regarding the Measme ' is of Triangle Park. The Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association has been asking for this document since May,2009. 1YA your meeting with me and other HB residents in May, 2009, YOU PROMISED us a copy of that Opinion Letter, or a new letter summarizing the contents of that Opinion Letter. As of today,you have NOT RESPONDED to my many e-mails regarding same, nor have you returned my many phone messages. It's been more than four months. You have also not responded yet to a formal request submitted this month for a copy of this document under the California Public Records Act. Will you respond?Will you comply? The deadline is September 18th. The residents of Huntington Beach deserve openness and transparency in our city government and its elected officials - why are you not releasing this document as you promised you would? As an elected official whose job it is to "protect the community" and be "accountable to the electorate" PLEASE RELEASE THIS DOCUMENT AND RELEASE IT NOW BEFORE THE FINAL DTSP IS PUBLISHED !!! Respectfully submitted by: i Kramer iuntington Beach Downtown Residents Association 3 November 2008, the following Cities have elected City Attorneys_ Albany, Chula Vista, Compton, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Redondo Beach, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco and San �.el. Li fact, the voters of the Chula Vista elected to create an =_.a:ted City Attorney as recently as November 2008. The ballot argument supporting the Chula Vista measure stated that "An independent City Attorney, chosen by the people, will be free to fight unethical behavior and corruption in city government and be independent of Mayoral or City Council influence." hbtalk mailing list hbtalk@bixby.org http://www.bixby.org/mailman/listinfo/hbtalk t 5 Wine, Linda From: Richardson Gray[richardson.gray@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 4:23 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission Dear Ms. Wine: Please make this email one of my written public comments for the October 6th public hearing on the DTSP and its EIR. Thank you. Richardson Gray (714-348-1928) ---On Tue, 9/22/09, Richardson Gray <rrchardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: RE:Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2009,7:19 PM Hi Again Kellee, Since I have not heard back from you,I will forward this email to Linda Wine to make sure it is a part` Planning Commission's package on the DTSP and EIR for October 6th. Just avant to make sure I get youi memo before the meeting. Thanks again. Richardson Gray � i 4 1t +3 L L t 415 Townsquare Lane#208 f1witington Beach, CA 92648 SEP 2 2 2009 714-318-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. ---On Tue,9/I5/09,Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@ahoo.com>wrote: From: Richardson Gray<richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: "KelleeFritzal" <KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org> Date: Tuesday,September 15, 2009,4:54 PM Hi Kellee-- Thanks for the update. Do you mean this memo will be a part of the public package distributed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing for the DTSP and its EIR,which I now have heard is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6th at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers? If not please let me know how I can get a copy of this memo? I appreciate your help. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i 714-348-1928 ncha,rdson.gray@yahoo.com Jn`I'ue, 9/15/09, Fritzal,Kellee <KFritzal@surfcity-hb.org>wrote: From: Fritzal, Kellee <KFritzal@swfcity-hb.org> Subject: RE: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: "Richardson Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> Cc: "Villasenor, Jennifer" <IVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 11:10 AM The memo will be part of the packet that is being set to the Planning Commission. You will be able to receive once the Commissioners have the memo From: Richardson Gray [mailto: richardson.gray@yahoo.com ] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:27 PM To: Fritzal, Kellee Subject: Fw: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission Again Kellee, As 1 have not heard back from you for a week now, l wanted to follow:up to see how 1 can get a copy of the referenced memo. Please let me know. Thanks. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson. raygyahoo.com On Wed, 9/2/09, Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.cont >wrote: 2 From: Richardson Gray <richardson.gray@yahoo.com > Subject: Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's DTSP Recommendations in Memo to the Planning Commission To: KFritzal@surfcity-hb_org Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2009, 5:39 PM Hi Kellee, At the last Downtown Economic Development Committee meeting, you said that you were sending aMeIT-1rio the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee's Downtown Specific Plan recommendations to the Planning Cons I would like to get a copy of this memo. If you can email it tome, that's great. If not, lean come by and pick kip a hard copy. Please let me know. Thanks. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane #208 Huntington Beach , CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson_gray@yahoo_com 3 Wine, Linda From: Punongbayan, Nova Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:09 AM Wine, Linda Hess, Scott; Fritzal, Kellee Subject: Fw: Downtown Specific Plan Update meeting Tues Oct 6th From: kate@therockandrollemporium.com <kate@therockandrollemporium_com> To: Punongbayan,Nova Cc: Synrgy4 <Synrgy4@aol.com> Seat: Thu Sep 24 08:25:39 2009 10) ]DD Subject: Downtown Specific Plan Update meeting Tues Oct 6th U11 Hi Nova: SEP 2 4 2009 Regarding: Huntington Beach Date: October 6th 2009 PLANNING DEPT. Time: 6:00 PM Location: City Council ChamberHB., 2000 Main Applicant:City of HB Request: Downtown Specific Plan Update It's Kate Kirby from The Rock and Roll Emporium at 205 Main Street. I'm writing to express my concem that the special meeting regarding the Downtown Specific Plan was scheduled on a Tuesday night_ I can only assume that you do pot want attendance from downtown business ownerstmanagers_As you should know, Tuesdays are Surf City NN,Or: 0-=-_i fair and most of the businesses that are active in the community will be busy managing their businesses. _ cruse this plan has a direct relation to our businesses, I request that you re-schedule this meeting to a night when more of us can be present_ If that can not happen, I would like it to be added to the.public record that this meeting was purposely scheduled so that most of the downtown business owners/managers,whose livelyhood will be directly�-Xe aed by this. plan, would not be able to attend resulting in an attempt to exclude any concerns (opposing or favorable) of the downtown business owners. Regards, Kate Kirby Managing Partner,The Rock and Roll Emporium 205 Main Street, Hunington Beach, CA 92648 7 1 4-960-4040 A9 ,L;,i i r;eucn PLANNING DEPT. 1 Dear Linda, f` This letter is intended to voice my strong concern about the potential fu + re 0 r development of downtown Huntington Beach. As a resident of Orange C Jun for close to 40 years and specifically Huntington Beach for the past ISyrs, live seen this =- city grow and change exponentially. Over the years 1 have spent most weekends of my life at the beach surfing and hanging out with friends and family. I've seen many positive things occur in this city and some negatives things as well. I've come to expect the sort of reciprocation between good and bad as should others who've lived in any decent sized city during their lives. I'm writing you today to let you know that I'm not against change nor am I a proponent of change. Change as I see it typically lends itself to growth opportunities. Here is the "But" that I'm sure you've been waiting for. The issue we are facing is simply expanding a beach that is already facing overcrowding as it is. I know that other beaches are also facing this same issue, but I don't think that we should simply except our disposition and further compound the problem through expansion. I believe that there is a fine line between expanding a city for potential revenue growth and overcrowding a city to the point that it looses it's appeal. I think that we are already feeling the frustrations from over crowded surface streets, loitering, more drinking and driving, fights, vagrancy, theft etc. My impression is that these problems have been getting worse and adding more and more people to this city will only compound these issues. Please consider this as my disproval of the idea to expand downtown HB. Sincerely, Eric Verkler Page 1 of 2 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.com] Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:01 PM To: undisclosed-recipients Subject: The Latest on the Cultural Arts Center/Triangle Park/Main Street Library To: City Council Members, Mayor Bohr, Planning Commissioners, HBDRA Supporters, HB Tomorrow, HB Talk, Other Interested Parties: From: Kim Kramer, Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association (HBDRA) Linked below is an article that appeared in last Thursday's issue of the LA Times HB Independent. It concerns a report commissioned by the Marketing and Visitors Bureau regarding the DTSP CultufgArts Overlay. . Click Here to View Some quotes from the article worth noting: "A 350-person event space . . ." "An analysis of the potential market demand, estimated revenue and the economic impact of a cultural center . . ." (HBDRA Comment: No where does it mention an analysis of the impact on residential quality of life which would be devastating for more than 3000 downtown residents.) "The bureau is waiting for City Council members to approve the Downtown Specific Plan before commenting or moving forward . . ." "The center is projected to open in 2013 and would attract an estimated 300,000 tourists . . ." "The three- to four-story, 40,000- to 50,000-square-foot building would include a 350- person rentable event space, a possible rooftop terrace and a restaurant or cafe with veranda seating . . ." "The center would also boast a 100- to 125-seat theater, a gift shop . . ." 8/17/2009 Page 2of2 "The existing building (Main Street Library) would not remain," Bone said. 8/17/2009 HUNTINGT0N BEAC.' I-I I.N"k "DEPENDEN. I" Published Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:03 AM PDT Top Stories Report: Profit is possible a � o By Britney Barnes The proposed cultural center in Triangle Park could play home to surfing = 3 and ocean-themed exhibits, a 350-person event space, and create more 3 than $4.4. million a year in revenue, according to a draft study obtained by o the Independent. The document, commissioned by the Huntington Beach Marketing & U-FT Visitors Bureau, is an analysis of the potential market demand, estimated revenue and the economic impact of a cultural center, and hasn't been released to the public or responded to by the bureau, President and Chief Executive Steve Bone said. � The bureau is waiting for City Council members to approve the Downtown o Specific Plan before commenting or moving forward on the draft, Bone said. n At this point, the draft does not represent the opinion of the bureau, but is (D 0 the recommendation of a third party, Bone said. o rr � The center is part of the proposed changes to the Downtown Specific Plan tA. to create a hub at the north end of Main Street's downtown area. The plan is : sa an update to the long-range planning documents the city uses to determine rt building specifications. C_ The plan is being amended to increase development over the next 20 years. It encompasses the area south of Goldenwest Street and north of Beach Boulevard along the beach and up to Palm Avenue in the downtown area. rD From Sixth Street north, the plan only extends up to Walnut Avenue. South of Main Street, the plan includes the resort areas. The cultural center would be the focal point of a proposed cultural arts overlay district that includes the Huntington Beach Art Center, a performing arts theater and an underground parking structure. The center is projected to open in 2013 and would attract an estimated 300,000 tourists and community members a year— increasing the city's income from transient HBDRA Comment: Per the HBDRA`s conversation with Mr.Bone,this is a tourist attraction and NOT for the community. The purpose is to fill the hotels with "heads in beds." 1 of 3 occupancy tax and bringing in a projected $4.4 million a year, according to the draft. The three- to four-story, 40,000- to 50,000-square-foot building would include a 350-person rentable event space, a possible rooftop terrace and a restaurant or cafe with veranda seating, according to the draft. The center would also boast a 100-to 125-seat theater, a gift shop and interactive exhibits. HBDRA Comment: This is larger in scope and more devastating than the D"TSF, The center would feature different exhibits, including one on surfing that the report states would be superior to the California Surf Museum in Oceanside, Huntington's International Surfing Museum and others in California. The exhibit would feature the history of surfing and those who have contributed to its culture, including inductees in the Huntington Beach Walk of Fame, according to the report. The center would also have a marine life exhibit with live specimens, an C. interactive learning library and educational classrooms. `,' ' ?' 3 "The idea is to make it highly interactive," Bone said. S t One of the most hotly contended aspects of the Downtown Specific Plan — -_ the possible removal of the Main Street Library — is included in the draft. .5 "The existing building would not remain," Bone said. ° The center would replace the library with a larger, state-of-the-art one that 0 ® 0 would better accommodate the needs of the community, Bone said. Q o Despite the possibility for increased revenue, some residents have been up �• in arms for months over the possible development of the center and the o destruction of their park and library. Community members have created the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Assn. and have packed the city's Planning Commission study session meetings with residents against the cultural center being built in their neighborhood. HBDRA Comment: Nearly 5000 residents have signed a petition in opposition to this proposal. Resident Richardson Gray said he is most concerned with how large and visitor-intensive the proposed center could be, and said he has been trying to lay hand on a copy of the report to no avail. Gray said residents need to see the details of the plan to understand the full scope of the project. One of the residents' biggest concerns is with the loss of the buffer zone between the downtown bars and their homes, and the increase of traffic on the two-lane highways around the intended site of the cultural center. 2 of 3 The Downtown Specific Plan must gain approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council before the Cultural Center can become more than a draft. 3 of 3 Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association Position Statement: DTSP Cultural Arts Overlay ISSUE: The City of Huntington Beach is proposing the redevelopment of Downtown Huntington Beach pursuant to the June 12, 2009 release of the Downtown Specific Plan Update, DTSP. The DTSP includes a Cultural Arts Overlay section which allows for the redevelopment of historic Main Street Library and Triangle Park located at 525 Main Street. The redevelopment permits a three-story, 40,000 square foot Cultural Arts Center Tourist Attraction with a performing arts venue, restaurants, kiosks, retail carts, retail stores, and other tourist-oriented commercial attractions. All of this will completely replace historic Main Street Library and Triangle Park. POSITION: The Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association, HBDRA, supports the existing land uses at Main Street Library and Triangle Park and opposes the commercial redevelopment of this site as outlined in the DTSP. The HBDRA is pro-development and pro-tourism and appreciates both as being important to the future success of our city. However, the HBDRA opposes the planned routing of hundreds of thousands of tourists into residential neighborhoods for commercial purposes. The HBDRA. asserts that a Cultural Arts Center Tourist Attraction at this site, within the heart of Huntingto)x Beach's oldest residential neighborhood, would substantially degrade the quality of life, aesthetics and hometown ambiance in the downtown residential district. The HBDRA supports the consideration of a Cultural Arts Center in the hotel/tourist zone closer to Pacific Coast Highway, to better manage the impacts of tourists, traffic and their resulting environmental effect. The HBDRA affirms that Main Street Library, nearly 60 years old, is of cultural and historic significance and should therefore be preserved.The HBDRA supports the restoration of the library and advocates the installation of the latest technologies to create a modern library facility that will serve and attract both residents and visitors. The HBDRA opposes the commercial development of public parkland and asserts that public parkland is a sacred trust to be safeguarded for future generations. The HBDRA asserts that Triangle Park, dedicated in 1912, should be enhanced to reflect its unique status as the only park in downtown proper serving the needs of both residents and visitors. Triangle Park should be maintained as an open space park serving as a focal point for the downtown as a gathering place for the community on an ongoing and special events basis. For more information, please contact: HBDRA 412 Olive Avenue, Suite 616 Huntington Beach 92648 714.374.3295 kim@e-mailcom.com Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner AUG 2009 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Planning Department PLANNING DEPT. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12,2009 Dear Ms. Villasenor: The members of the Pierside Homeowners Association(Pierside),by a virtually unanimous vote, has authorized our Board of Directors (Board) to send you these comments on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009(DTSP). Our Town Homes comprise 16 residences at Pierside, at the corner of Sixth Street and Orange Avenue in downtown. Our Board urges the City to maintain for the long term the historic Main Street Library building (Library) and its surrounding historic Triangle Park(Park), and to build any downtown cultural center and structured parking at some alternative site. This email is a repetition of the substance of an email that we sent to Kellee Fritzal about the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008. We are recommending the preservation of the Library and Park for a number of reasons. 1. Triangle Park is the only park and the only significant amount of open space and green space away from the beaches in the DTSP area. Although the beaches provide open space, downtown has a woeful shortage of green space. Triangle Park is the only open space downtown primarily for residents, as the beaches are largely tourist oriented. Furthermore, Huntington Beach, citywide,has a ten-acre shortage of parkland. 2. Downtown has had a library for Huntington Beach's entire 100-year history. We understand that the size of the Main Street Library could be reduced by as much as one half if the proposed cultural center is built. The Main Street Library is important historically, as it was the main library for the entire City until the Central Library was completed in the 1970s. I The Park and Library are ill suited for a significant amount of underground parking. This site is served only by two-lane,local roads, almost entirely through established residential areas. The only non-residential street providing access to the Park and Library is Main Street from Pacific Coast Highway. This stretch of Main Street already is overburdened for much of the time during warmer months of the year, and will not be able to support additional traffic from the proposed cultural center and its proposed underground parking garage. For these reasons, among many others, we urge the City to seek out alternative downtown locations, nearer to the beaches and farther away from established residential areas, for its proposed cultural center and underground parking. We want the Library and Park kept as they are now. Thank you for your consideration. Board of Directors Pierside Homeowners Association Jennifer Villasenor � -� ... w. Associate Planner (� City of Huntington Beach Planning Department AUG 1 2009 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington BeachPLANNING DEPT, Re: Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12,2009 Dear Ms. Villasenor: The Board of Directors of the Townsquare Master Homeowners Association (Board) unanimously voted to send you these comments on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (DTSP). Our Board represents the 89 owners of the 73. condominiums and 16 Town Homes at Townsquare, in part bounded by Sixth Street, Main Street, and Orange Avenue in downtown. Our Board urges the City to abandon its proposal in the DTSP for a cultural center and underground parking(Center) at the historic Main Street Library building(Library) and its surrounding historic Triangle Park (Park). This email repeats the recommendations that we sent to Kellee Fritzal about the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008. We are advocating against the proposed cultural center and underground parking at the Library and Park for many reasons, including the following. 1. The City already has two performing arts centers that are less than fully-utilized: one at Central Library and one at Huntington Beach High School. Building a third performing arts center at the Library and Park would be a poor use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Although we know that the Center proposal is being promoted for uses such as live theatre or classical music,we are concerned that these uses might not thrive in downtown Huntington Beach. If these "high culture" uses were not to generate sufficient revenue, the City might be forced to book much less neighborhood friendly uses, including the possibility of rock and roll bands,which might cater more to downtown's predominant twenty- something crowds. 2. The location of a sizable amount of underground parking at the Library and Park would push the density of downtown's commercial district literally to our doorsteps, with no buffer, as we would be losing our transitional area. We understand that this underground parking garage could include from 200 to 400 spaces,including two possible components: one for the cultural center itself,with over 200 required spaces, and one for other downtown developments which do not have sufficient on site parking,possibly adding more than another 150 spaces. For these reasons, we ask that the City abandon its proposal in the DTSP for a cultural center and underground parking at the Library and Park. We want the Library and Park preserved as their present neighborhood friendly uses. Thank you for your support. Board of Directors Townsquare Master Homeowners Association - 0 R, � 'l��v � Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner AUG U 2009 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Planning Department PLANNING DEPT. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 Dear Ms. Villasenor: The Board of Directors of the Townsquare Condominiums (Board) unanimously voted to send you this written public comment on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009 (June DTSP). Our Board represents the owners of the 73 condominiums at Townsquare, at the comer of Sixth and Main Streets in downtown. Our Board urges the City to preserve the historic Main Street Library building(Library) and its surrounding historic Triangle Park (Park) as they are now. We sent a similar written public comment to Kellee Fritzal regarding the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008. We are advocating for the preservation of the Library and Park for the following reasons, among others. 1. The Library is a great resource for downtown families and has the best attended pre-school storytime programs in the City. Its building has been on the Park since 1951, and as such is one of the few remaining historic structures in downtown. 2. The Park is the second oldest park in the City, dating back to 1912. In the Park's original deed to the City,the City was restricted to maintain the Park as parkland forever. 3. Given the vibrancy of downtown Main Street south of Orange, which often reaches a level of rowdiness that detracts from the quality of life for downtown residents,we think that the City needs to keep a buffer or transition area between downtown's commercial district and the residential areas north of downtown, including the Townsquare Condominiums. Currently, the Library and Park provide such a buffer and transition area. If a major cultural center with underground parking is built at the Library and Park, this buffer and transition will be lost to the residents at the north end of downtown. Such a loss would greatly reduce the quality of life for the many residents north of downtown, including those of the Townsquare Condominiums. For these reasons, we ask that the City's proposal, for a cultural center and underground parking at the Library and Park,be stricken from the June DTSP before its approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. We urge you to preserve the Library and Park as they are now. Thank you for your consideration and support. Board of Directors Townsquare Condominiums Wine, Linda From: Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.com] ?ent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:54 PM - `o: Wine, Linda Subject: Please forward to the Planning Commissioners Attachments: BUS_08.14.09.jpg To: Planning Commissioners I do not know why this Charter Bus was parked here in front of the Main Street Library and in front of these homes. However, it was the second time this has happened in the last 30 days. guess this might give us a sense of what life might be like for the residents who live so close to Triangle Park if the Cultural Arts Center is approved. Thanks and best regards, Kim AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 y.'; .a.,,v., d,. fz tlxtg '.q ! `, .;i� �i•15 , -..... ::, _:. t��, 3"k��'' @:� A :Y :SF{# • �,+ 31 n''r:.. 3 Y';r ! :;\ , ' - I i''�:,r � w :'}e`� '� .... :�i .M�""'"'a°" � � � f .°•i`A Y fr. � - S Kati ° y I ";£:, r ...,,k s '�• _.3.d. tei±,.➢,yyyt�c�r iq?a7aht ;�3��• �r<2 r� 14•� .h Y\Yb' FJ ('t �':'i��/ r a:: - ''yy \ IREIy 9 o f _ LiA A rr.} 4kM1, Iw r x r f s �+';;�i�c,W. �•a�',,�. `at .t' t yf'I �<4. k.,. 'jd� \�..1.,� �; Alt li:a L• f -,;;3� °J' S:; v , �1 eLS� ,�I r{ d:• I t J x rt r af.. 1 .I, � ,�...� ��� i_'i'!•p,�3�3f�`M N " r r l sl � ��•,y I j®Zl nh�' �r�\v�a���'�h; ,.� ? c� + v^ �, I s y, try (+ 9 ` , `».� wf�•' r;r �,w+,�'�zt1i�' r -�`! .afL�+,uv t r .. tat •I x a � c H �.�!. A:141 � '..f 1 l 't' �3 \.. t �X iSiY ,c..Y`CM. ^'`.^ 1 �IWla�/J I;f• x 1_�,"' `` 3�U •I � �,> r`{°j r,�'.�,; a,s I V`6 ✓�,, 2SaJ�sKafY fl i 1 ��, � �� .Y. ` `��b`y r Tj'An'' '7 .' �\,\� ppn I� }y fi w,,ys� kt s Lisa 1,v i ✓' I `. I' .I,I. 1�"•iv'lytv'�IktP f JF A 1 r i y l x '.y ,} of r ��,I 1 (: 1 .I I .. z�'�`J,n�,i���w t9�F? P m � r 4 r -!�„y, �g t �'S'rba+.�'�1►<d� �, � yd"!s".,`y/y;}�+t f�,1.::�Q A">y r,t"R�,�,. ~:>L�'¢' ����•'���°�^;' If ,�,�,t�''3%'a�� P���_ t ? 4 ?ri_,t t J c;,W�'L i�'` � - ���:+ �•_ .''—•�� b 4�, �� �. `y',�i.t k. �: 1 �� _ A.• t,3 �yA�i^ r,rfr � `F ;�;+ � x. J(��I' ::V. ,. ix�v .:/� '� .�;{3 / ;`.;e s a, -+. ;Y� / .. . 4,' ..'"r„a}s � ��,d�::-� r � rrs, ;�}; A' ��+ q,',:/„{c:� •°t r, �' 1., aki• ./t',' o-: • • w • hdit/Add Request Information Page 1 of 1 Edit/Add Request ' Assigned to:Linda Wine Request:1486 Entered on:07/30/2009 09:04 AM (t followup Items below) Short form 0 Long form Customer Information reate,another;,r�q.,est::ar,cu$tomef,,, Last name:Moritz First name:Dan Phone: Alt phone: Email:dmoritzl0@gmail.com Address:19405 MacGregor Cir City:Huntington Beach State:CA Zip code:92648 Request Classification Topic:;Planning Commission-Comments on Agenda Items Request type:;Comment Entered via:;Web Topic Item: Library Replacement Pro, *Description: 0 Attachments to this Request I'm am opposed to this. This field is used to describe the problem or I this we should maintain/enhance the quality of our town vs short-term profit and additional tax base. question. Customer will see this field. Please preserve the quality of life for those of us that live in HB. Reason Closed(Contents sent to customer): 0 Attachments to send This must be filled in to Dear Mr.Moritz:I will forward your comments to the Planning Commission. Thank you. -Linda Wine,Administrative Assistant,Planning Dept,linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org close service request; contents of field are e- mailed for customer notification. Expected Close Date:08/13/2009 Date Closed:07/30/2009 09:37 AM By:Linda Wine SEEM 0,00 #1:07/30/2009 09:34 AM-Added Internal Information by Linda Wine July 30,2009:Responding to customer and closing Pipeline...Linda WIne (OPTIONAL) You may add an internal note to this request or send an email ". Add our notes/messy a here: Insert message: (Select message from list Y 9 9 9 ) ; ,elm , Clarification/nofficatlon needed;message sent to customer I................ ................,,...................,.....................,...,.............,..,................................................. ...../1f �i...................11,I1uI �, 5 f Content added as internal notation;not seen py customer �qt�............................................. ....... ................................................................................................................................. .. ,; SCEs' '�' � �.' Send to other employee(s)for assistance/questions s fi htfn-flimer anvrnitraar.h r.nm/cnrfr•.it�r/nriitracP.nhn�r•.mri=P.riitR•irl=7'7d(15(1 RI4/2("k 4) ti Wine, Linda From: Gloria Alvarez[gloria@e-mailcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:36 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION SESSION -JULY 28th Dear Ms. Wine, Please forward my comments to the Planning Commissioners in regards to the Historical Main Street Library Building and the downtown parkland also known as Triangle Park as noted by our City Council in 1950. Please be advised that I will not be speaking at the Planning Commissioners meeting tonight as I will be downtown with many of our fellow Huntington Beach residents that have volunteered to help inform the Public of the situation currently under review by the Planning Commissioners and within a few months scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council. Namely, the City's study that threatens to potentially destruct a Historically significant Building and destroy open Parkland by cementing over it. Gloria Alvarez Kramer HBDRA b 7 8 9 10 11 I2 3 d 5 b ] 8 9 �O 13 i4 IS Ib 17 IB !9 10 i1 12 13 74 75 Ib ✓I 1111 I p 21 22 23 24 25 26 I7 18 1IL m 9 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 ` I_ e/� JUNE 1 5 7 7 7 Flag Day(US) :15 z :15 :15 30 30 _ ----! � 45 :45 :45 8 tjvw8 v 15 :15 :15 :30 i :45 :45 { :4 9 �1 .1 j:30:45 :30 :30 :45 :45 10Co 10 C !/ nr\ � j :15 k :15 :15 - -� :30 N :30 :30 :45 4 Q :45 (� 11 I1 1 :15 l (� , 5 1 v :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 12 12 12 :15 :15 :1 30 :45 :45 :45 1 1 1 :15 15 :30 � :45 :45 2 2 "21n :15 :15 :15 :30 0 :45 :45 :45 3 3 3 :15 (� :l a :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 -45 5 ti O 5 �02- :15 :15 :15 :30 :30 :30 - 6 6 Father's Day :15 eWIV i :30 :30 :45 :45 7d 0 ®- U :15 :15 :30 :30 :45 ( Q 8 8 :15 �A — :30 :30 :45 :45 ®AT-A GLANCE May 2008 June 20 S M 1 W 1 F S S 1 2 3 1 2--_ y q$6 JUNE 16 d5678324 8 3MIS1312 13 14 15161fromWEEK 25 18 26 20 21 22 23 2d 22 23 2d 2s - 27 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 .15 — :15 ( 5 :30 _ :30 :30 -45 :45 :45 8 8 8 _ :15 1 Qct, .30 :30 :30 '45 :45 9 15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 10 Ci( 1 -15 :15 .30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 11 1 -15 :15 :15 :30 :30 -.30 :45 j :45 (� 12 12 12 :15 :15 :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 l CJL e' 1 1 :15 :15 :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45rl& ty : 5¢- 2 2 2 :15 :15 :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 3 3 3 :15 :15 4 :15 :30 per(QJ :30 :45 :45 :45 4 4 4 :15 :15 451 :30 d t :45 :45 :45 5 5 5 :15 :1 '� 1 .30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 6 6 6 :15 :15 Q :15 :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 7 7 —�— :15 :15 :15 M :30 :30 :45 :45 8 8 8 :15 :15 :15 _ :30 :30 :30 :45 :45 :45 's Wine, Linda From: Lee Ann Nunn [salkowitz@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:20 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Triangle Park Greetings Ms. Wine, My name is Lee Ann Salkowitz and I am a resident of downtown Huntington Beach. I do not think that Triangle Park should be developed and I think our community would be much better served by making the Downtown Librar,°a YvIE that attracts residents. It would be wonderful to see the library remodeled to have a reading garden and tea time. I feel that by taking away our green space and by extending downtown into our residential neighborhood the city would be decreasing the quality of life for us. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Lee Ann Salkowitz IL,�3� JUL 7009 Huntington:Beech PLANNING DEPT i Wine, Linda From: Dean Carlson [deanerl3@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 225 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: keep the Park Linda, Come on, enough is enough. I being a resident of downtown HB do not want to see any more encroacl moot onto residentaii areas.I mean the development folks cannot not even come up with any good arch t(,c . the Strand is a big pile of ugly yellow. Can you guys come up with any more neutral colors you have not though#.of Just stop with all development downtown, go work on other areas of HB. Dean HEa�- « 6���=�;� .w JUL 14 7009 Huntington t3ea--t PLANNING D PT i Wine, Linda From: Holly Kruger[Holly@HollyKruger.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:31 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: DTSP Update Linda -- As a 20+ year resident of Downtown HB, I am quite concerned about the urbanization of downtown. While much has been done to improve the city, replacing the historic Library and Triangle Park with a large structure would be an eyesore not only for the immediate residents but for the area overall. Main St. between Orange and Palm as it currently exists, is a good transition between the urbanized area between Orange and PCH and the residential area north of Palm. A large cultural center would eliminate any transition. If a cultural center is needed, why not use the HBHS Auditorium which has recently been renovated? There are also facilities at Central Library. Why does the city think that if we build it people will comer Why try to compete with the South Coast cuiltural area? We are turning into a concrete jungle and losing the charm that has made downtown desirable and unique. I hope that the city will restore the library as a historical building, improving both the library and park in the process. Holly Kruger, REALTOR L3JL 714-815-2233 Direct 706 14th St. mailto:Holly(cbHollyKruger.com www.CoastalHomeGroup.com JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 - Wine, Linda From: Mary Adams Urashima [urashima@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:11 PMr �� - To: Wine, Linda Subject: Late communication for July 14 planning commission meeting JUL 14 2009 Hi Linda— Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Below is a late communication for the planning commission meeting, Agenda item A-2 (Downtown Specific Plan). Mary Urashima Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: I would like to express my objection to the current conceptual proposal for the downtown library and park site. I am supportive of an effort to identify other sites in the commercial and tourist zone of the downtown area for cultural uses, such as a museum and gallery. The reasons for my objection have to do with the preservation of long-established public trust resources: the library and surrounding public park. My concern also has to do with the national trend in the reduction of municipal public parkland noted by the American Society of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency,the U.S. Forest Service and the Trust for Public Land. For years,these organizations have cautioned about the effect this would have on our communities. The South Coast Air Quality District has long advocated for parkland and tree planting. In June 2009, EPA listed Orange County as having the sixth worst air quality in the country. Let's not compound a problem we already know exists. Parkland removes particulates from the air and we need that. I ask you consider the fundamental purpose of community planning. Its purpose is to build safe, healthy, sustainable and attractive communities. We are all aware of current economic conditions; however, this should never be a reason to sacrifice the original principles of community planning. Hard times pass. Early American community planners considered public libraries and parks to be tangible evidence of democratic principles. Anyone—no matter what their status or income--could use a public library and enjoy a public park. In America, libraries were no longer something held only by the wealthy. Our public parks were intended to be places of free assembly and representative of our quality-of-life values. 1 urge you to think about what it says about us if we are so willing to tear down and commercialize a library and park. The current proposed concept will: • Diminish the long-held use of the site as a library and park, breaking a public trust • Significantly decrease the size of the public park, affecting the air quality, storm water, ambient temperature and noise mitigation benefits • Drive traffic toward the residential district, instead of toward the commercial zone Revitalization of the downtown library and park can be done in a way that helps create a cultural zone, but is respectful of the history and purpose of the site. We should keep in mind that this is a transition area between the residential district and the downtown commercial/tourist district. Consider revitalizing the site with: • A restoration of the library's architecture, with interior modernization • Strengthen the structure to support a rooftop reading terrace for readers and community book clubs • Add an outdoor reading garden to the park where the library can offer children's story time, adult literature and poetry readings, and non amplified music(e.g. guitar or small ensemble performances) • Place sculptural public art in the park perimeter to identify it as part of the cultural district • Periodic outdoor art displays in cooperation with the Art Center You can create an environment that re-energizes the original planned uses for the site, encourages pedestrians instead of cars, synergizes with the Art Center, preserves parkland public health and environmental benefits, and creates 1 a memorable experience for both residents and visitors. Thank you for considering alternatives to the proposed conceptual plan. Mary A.darns Ulrashima Huntington Beach Wine, Linda, From: sdinon [sdinon@socal.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:13 PM - -To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle park and Main St Library Please save the Traingle park and the Main Street library, we do not need more commerical development in downtown. We need to peserve our neighborhoods and not over develope Main Street. Its important to keep our sense of community and would be a total waste of our tax payer's money. Start with pressure washing the sidewalks on Main street from al)the throwup and junk from the development we already have. 1 would not vote for any council merry±;�:, t lai: would destroy the park and library... Concern citizen of H.B. Susan Dinon, 19356 Woodlands Lane, HB 714-849-9155 JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT 1 I Wine, Linda From: Sarah Eggleston [two_uber_eggs@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4.56 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Triangle Park& Library Issue Good afternoon Ms. Wine, My name is Sarah Eggleston. Both my husband, Gary, and I are residents of Huntington Beach. We are not residents of the downtown area,but are concerned with the possibility of that area ceasing to exist as it currently exists. We have heard of the possiblity that the City will build a 4-story "cultural center", complete with small library, museum,restaurants, and other tourist attraction type venues. To build this monolith,the current Triangle Park and branch Library would be destroyed. This is very disconcerting and troubles us greatly. The most troubling point of it is that my husband and I moved to Huntington Beach because of the quality of life that the downtown residents'experienced. It is a wonderful paradise. However, due to the many tourist attractions and bars that inhabit the area, that paradise is overrun with rowdy teenagers and the smell of vomit and just plain wall-to-wall people most of the time. Because of that we moved to the Huntington Harbor area and go downtown only during the week. Both Gary and I strongly feel that if you build the big "tourist attraction" it will completely destoy that way of life. That is unacceptable. If that happened, I'd most likely move out of Huntington. On another note,I am a librarian by profession and a preservationist at heart. The Main Street branch Library has character and a history. It's the history of downtown. It's what draws people to Huntington. If you build a brand spanking new building,it will be just another strip mall ...just like every other city... no more soul no more casual HB. Thank you and we appreciate your consideration, LJ k , F1 Sarah and Gary Eggleston ( JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Kline, Linda From: kieverkkatt@verizon.net :Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:58 PM -ro: Wine, Linda Subject: Save the triangle Please stop the "upgrade" to the triangle area surrounding the library in downtown Huntington Beach. more car and tourist traffic to this residential area is not what is needed.; concern for the tax-paying residents' qu-Abt V of life in this wonderful city is. There are other facilities and areas currently available and better placed i'c,. being planned for this small triangle-shaped area in the midst of citizens'homes. If bringing the librau- 1,o is an issue,then let's do it in a way where the building can provide historical background for this great and unique city. Please, let's not bring the tourists directly to the front doors of our residents! Thank you, Lesley Gran 7341 Coho Dr. #104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714 421-1532 � �IEd v FLE JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda Fromm sayrebob@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 5:43 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: LIBRARY and Accidents My name is Robert Sayre, I live at Eleventh and Main. I just saw another accident involving an 8 year old- ebild hit in the street by a car on Main Street. This is the third child I know has been hit by a car on Main Stree! four blocks (fora where you are planning significant expansion of the Library into a larger traffic draw. 7111 not protect its children now from the traffic congestion it already has,how do you expect to keep acc!'fi involving children from escalating if you have 50%to 100%more traffic with the new plans for the Library? What is the priority e our children's safety or unneccessary commercial expansion? A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.See yours in just 2 easy steps! -1 J JUL 14 2000 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. e Wine, Linda From: sayrebob@aol.com "Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:53 PM _ Co: Wine, Linda; kim@e-mailcom.com Subject: Library redevelopment, drinking and accidents Dear Linda, I just sent you an e-mail regarding the redevelopment of the library and Triangle Park on Main Street. This area can not be developed into a commercial property where "rooftop" functions with alcohol become a venue endorsed and profited by the city. There are already far too many accidents now between the library and the park. I just saw another child hit in the middle of the street by a car not 4 blocks from where you are proposing the new" traffic draw". The congestion we get now on Main between the schools and the library is not safe for the neighborhood kids,how will the city protect the children and other pedestrians and residents once you've increased traffic 50%, and added evening functions where alcohol will be served. Do you really want the ramifications of the very likely increase in accidents involving neighborhood children to be attributed back to this decision?There is too much traffic now, and the speed limit is too high. Everyone should look at the number of accidents and speeding violations that have occurred between the library and the schools. I think the numbers, especially in relationship to other residential areas of downtown,will make everyone think twice about increasing traffic through this residential area. We do not want a headline that reads " Redevelopment of downtown Library to Rooftop Parry rental by city put children's safety in Jeopardy". x`fully support the idea of a Cultural Center,just think it's better placed closer to PCH and Beach which can better handle the increased traffic. I think a center closer to the water would be in higher demand as a venue for functions, and would command higher prices. The vacant movie theater facing PCH would be a great location, and has the parking neccessary. Thank you for your considerations, and time. . JUL 14 2009 Regards, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Robert Sayre 827 Eleventh Street Huntington Beach, Ca 714 357 2581 A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! i Wine, Linda 'M From: Wine, Linda o cG'D Sent- Monday, July 20, 2009 10:32 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: FW: Main Street Library and Triangle Park(reed July 14, 2009) JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. From: Roslansky Jane [mailto:jroslansky@snyder-langston.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 14, 2009 9:33 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: Bohr, Keith; Green, Cathy; Carchio,Joe; Coerper, Gil; Dwyer, Devin; Hardy,Jill; Hansen, Don Subject: RE: Main Street Library and Triangle Park attended this evenings Planning Commission Study Session and have to ask the question- Why did a planning commission member ask the design consultant what other General Plans they have worked on and for which city? And when the design consulted replied "Santa Clarita", the Planning Commission members next question was have you done any projects(not General Plans, but"projects") in any coastal cities he hymned and hawed and then mentioned some cities but not the type of projects. Was there not an interview process? And if so,why would the planning commission be asking these types of questions at this stage of the plan? The planning commission seem to have a lot of questions and the plan appears very vague and at best preliminary at this stage, however, there seems to be a strange rush to push this plan through. That leads this resident to wonder what the actual agenda is. Is it to push a density from 25 per acre to 60? Is it to caterer to the tourists at any expense of the residents? Is to build parking structures on our city's beaches? Is it to build a white elephant"Cultural Center"in a residential area where the Downtown Huntington Beaches residents library and park(or in some people's opinion a place for dogs to pee)currently is? Or is it to put a canyon of five story buildings downtown? Where are the Huntington Beach residents wishes being addressed in this plan which is being rushed through? Which i assume, they also expect us to pay for? Were the designers of this plan given a budget to work within?And if so, can you direct me to where I can review that budget? I was initially upset to hear about the proposed Cultural Center which is why I attended this meeting however, it appears that it is only the tip of the iceberg of what I really should be concerned about. To think that they are proposing this plan without a reasonable budget, any concerns to the residents, ridiculous density changes and vague parking solutions makes me question not only the qualifications as well as the integrity of our elected officials. From: Roslansky Jane Sent: Monday,July 13, 2009 1:04 PM To: 'linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org' Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park As a resident near downtown, (I live off Lake Street) I was concerned about the development of a Cultural Arts Center being proposed in the location of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. I am not opposed to the development of the Cultural Arts Center what I am opposed to is the proposed location. It seems as if a project of this size should have been incorporated in the Pacific City development site or some other site that would be a draw to tourists but away from a residential neighborhood. I am also opposed to taking a park and tuming it into a commercial development and the demolition of a historical cultural building rather then the restoration/renovation of it. Our City has lost so much historical properties in the name of redevelopment it seems as if we would like to keep the few we have left to us. We are fortunate to have a City that many people would like to visit however, it should not come to the expense of our residents. 1 _ a Wine, Linda From: Bob Cooke[bcooke001 @socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:42 AM _To: Wine, Linda Subject: Planning meeting Linda: 1 attended last nights planning commission. It was very informative. I believe you all have an open mind on the Triangle Park subject. I am a member of the Downtown Home Owners Association. I was disappointed in Richardson Grays aggressive comments in reference to our voting block against any council member that opposes our position or, the library. His position on threats is not my position. I will make comment on the subject at our next association meeting. Thanks for your service Bob Cooke Townsquare Li UIL������/�L�✓ JUL 15 2009 Huntington Peach PLANNING DEPT 1 Wine, Linda From: Debora George[customerservice@wireacake.com] COWED D Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:21 AM v u To: Wine, Linda Cc: Stan JUL 15 2009 Subject: Triangle park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Hello Linda Wine of the Planning Commission Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. We have seen many changes in the 5 years that we have been residents of HB. Progress&change is inevitable yet at what point do we lose the charm of our beautiful downtown HB? I believe we are at that point with the destruction of Triangle Park. The little library reminds me of when I was a kid going to school where the library was where all homework was done. The library is a piece of old history for HB and perhaps restoration is the better alternative. To destroy the park would be a disaster for young families.The downtown skinny homes don t have yards for the kids to play in and the park is everyone's backyard! We have seen 6th street become increasingly traveled especially now with the Strand park garage.This summer has started off badly with crowds,vehicle traffic and vandalism so much that we are starting to talk about making a move out of HB >(. Dr&Mrs Stan Tsakoumakis 316 6th Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-960-7034 Fax 714-960-4185 1 Wine, Linda From: Robbins, Elizabeth [elizabeth.robbins@aecom.com] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 6:07 AM ro: Wine, Linda Subject: FW: Preservation of Triangle Park and Main Street Library I have lived in Huntington Beach for over 20 years. 1 have watched all the small houses be replaced by three story mini- mansions. Every year we loose more of the history and charm that was the city be destroyed. I will not be in town on July 28"'or I would join in the meeting. Triangle Park and the library are virtually the only traditional remnants of the original Main Street left in downtown. I can not see the benefit of destroying such a gem. Does everything have to be stucco and multistory?Can't we keep that small space to remember the history of the city. Elizabeth Robbins W Lk-C Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail JUL 2 0 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DERF. f 1 Wine, Linda From: BONNIE[beach bonnie@socal_rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:01 PM _To: Wine, Linda Subject: MAIN STREET LIBRARY&TRIANGLE PARK As a 40-year downtown resident of Huntington Beach, I am opposed to the redevelopment of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library for a cultural center because there are only two narrow traffic lanes in this area(one in each direction) :nd the added congestion would be a hardship for those of us living here. It is already nearly impossible to cross or enter traffic on Main Street at 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Streets (my neighborhood), and a cultural center in this location w(-,1i only add to this problem. I suggest that it would be more feasible to locate such a project on Beach Blvd or to the north near the freeway where there might be enough lanes to handle the extra congestion such a project would attract. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Bonnie Schmeski 739 13th Street Huntington Beach 714-536-1866 JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Robert Schmeski [bobs@socal_rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2.-07 PM To: Wine, Linda - - Subject: Performing arts center What could be greener then lawn?The city is proposing to replace a beautiful park with a four story building. Are there not many unsightly weed-grown concrete vacant spaces that would be greatly improved by such a monument to connw, (,g C,,? My grandchildren, children, wife and myself have enjoyed the library for many years and would hope to do son 9,;� �_.l.wa� I, as a long time resident of Huntington Beach, know that there are areas that would benefit by such a building thrust upon the local citizenry. I do not even wish to start about the traffic. Please reconsider. Thank you. Robert Schmeski 13th and Crest. F Ji.N 2 - ZD09 Huntnyton Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Francesco Crosara[francescocrosara@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 2:27 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Response to proposed Triangle Park and Main Street Library development project Dear Ms. Wine, We have been advised of the intent of the City of HB to turn Triangle Park into a commercial center along with the dismantling of the current library in Main Street. As residents in Downtown Huntington Beach,we would like to express our deep concern of this proposal. We are opposed to this plan for the simple reason that it will jeopardize the overall safety of our community with the estimated influx of 250,000+tourists during the summer, and consequent overpopulation in a very small area. With this type of over-crowding, the crime rate will also increase, and so will traffic in two small arteries such as Main and Lake streets. Please put into the official record our opposition to this project. Thank you for listening to citizens'concerns. Regards, Francesco&Julia Crosara 613 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 r Wine, Linda From: Gloria Alvarez[gloria@e-mailcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:08 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: DTSP-CULTURAL ARTS OVERLAY- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Importance: High Dear Ms. Wine, am a resident of downtown Huntington Beach and am writing to you to express my support for the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. Please note that our own HB City Council identified this land as Triangle Park nearly 60 years ago as quoted in The Huntington Beach News Newspaper dated October 5, 1950. This library is vital to the community and should not be demolished simply because the City has been deliquent in updating it to ADA and Earthquake standards and deliquent in providing it the same tools found in the other HB City libraries. Regarding the Park itself, this open green space is enjoyed EVERY DAY by the residents of downtown, both young and old. We hope to provide the City Council and Planning Commission the information to make a responsible and wise decision as they take into consideration what the real ramifications are when destroying a Mid-Century Architecturally significant building and cementing over an existing park and replacing it with a Tourist Attraction in the middle of the oldest residential community in Huntington Beach. look forward to sharing my concerns at tonight's Planning Commission public comments segment. Thank you, Gloria M. Alvarez Huntington Beach Resident I Vr \-,L, JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Villasenor, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:40 PM _'o: Wine, Linda Subject: FW: The Library ��. `vim"D � z JUN 2 3 2009 City of Huntington Beach Huntington BeachPLANNING DEPT. Planning Department From: Desiree Hooper [mailto:desiree-hooper@hotmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:37 PM To: Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: The Library To Whom it Concerns; There is upsetting news that the City Councel wants to tear down the old library that has historical value to the people of Huntington Beach. It is upsetting to think that some developers think it is an eye sore, unfortunately they haven't enjoyed this city for nearly as long as I, and my family have. I grew up learning in this library, I have fond memories of my childhood here, it would be sad to see a landmark be demolished because of a few who want to reface the city into something that the people of Huntington .—Beach do not want. People who haven't been here for nearly as long as my uncle or other friends ' id relatives have. It was taught to me that the planning of the cities interest belongs to the people of Ns community, not to the rich few who want to turn into something else, that Huntington Beach is not. My response to this plan is not of a happy tune, but of sadness, that the city wants to destroy what made Huntington Beach what it is today. Every city has it's historical buildings, and this is definately one of those buildings that falls under the historical code. It is not in the best interest of this community to see it go down. I hope you will reconsider this proposal, and listen to to people of Huntington Beach. Do not tear down that beautiful old building where I learned and grew up, a legacy that should be left for my children to enjoy. Sincerely, Desiree N. Hooper Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail@. See how. i Wine, Linda From: ❑ Suzanne Owens [Suzanne0wens@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:48 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: cs Blaze Subject: Fwd: Save Triangle Park/Main Street Library Hi Linda, My neighbor, Sunny Blaze, at 305 9th Street, said she supports the existing Triangle Park and the M iin "t-re dt Library, and would like her name signed in agreement with my earlier message opposing any proposed changes. Please see message below. Thank you. Suzanne Owens 309 9th Streets t ' Sunny Blaze JUN 2 3 7009 305 9th Street Huntington Peach PLANNING DEPT Begin forwarded message: From: ❑ Suzanne Owens<suzanneowensp_verizon.net> Date:June 22,2009 8:19:00 PM PDT To:lind a.wi ne(a)surfcity-h b.orq Subject:Save Triangle Park/Main Street Library TO: Linda Wine City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Owens 309 9th Street Huntington Beach Please do not consider any change in the existing Triangle Park and Main Street Library. I believe access to the open green space of this small park, and the library services provided by this branch of the library, are essential community features to downtown Huntington Beach residents. I am against the elimination of Triangle Park because of the high population density in downtown,since nearly all single family residences are built on 25 feet wide lots,which means there are few open green spaces within walking distance for downtown residents. The elimination of this park would inevitably lead to increased congestion and would have a negative impact on the quality of life to downtown Huntington Beach residents. Certainly,the city agrees that downtown is already a high density area,and more should be done to provide additional open spaces,rather than eliminate those already in use. Triangle Park is a longtime existing landmark for downtown residents and their visitors,and it is closely linked as one of the first identifying features viewed when entering the downtown area. 1 Our Main Street Library currently provides library services within walking distance to downtown residents. The elimination of this library would necessitate driving several miles to other libraries, and would do nothing to enhance literacy to children in our community. - —ertaWy,the city recognizes that less driving should be promoted, rather than eliminating local services and thereby requiring additional time and driving to utilize a public library. An additional concern that has been discussed among my neighbors is the cost of this proposed project. It has not been clear where the city plans to obtain funding for this construction project. Given the overwhelming cuts to public services currently taking place throughout the state, at every level of government a .1i {.a cuts to established public education programs, I am extremely disappointed that the City of Huntington Beach would even consider removing Triangle Park and our Main Street Library. 2 Wine, Linda From: Mickey Mehalick[mmehalick@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:50 PM To: Wine, Linda _ Subject: Main St. Library Hello Linda, My name is Michael Mehalick and I have an Architectural Design firm here in H.B. I have seen the conceptual on the proposed structure at Main St. and 6th. and feel it is vastly over scaled for the area and encroaches to much into the existing single-family area adtacena . Such a large project along with the proposed increases further down Main St. would greatly overburden the existing 2- lane accesses of Main St. and Orange Ave. Please consider these issues for the long term quality of the downtown area. We should strive to keep the "Village" concept intact. Regards, Michael Mehalick I LEEAVE Q) JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: ❑ Suzanne Owens [Suzanne0wens@verizon.net) Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:54 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fwd: Save Triangle Park/Main Street Library TO: Linda Wine City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission My neighbor, Sunny Blaze, at 305 9th Street, would like her name added to my message sent earlier, in support of maintaining the existing Triangle Park and Main Street Library, and opposes the changes as proposed by the City. See message below. Thank you Suzanne Owens 309 9th Street Huntington Beach Sunny Blaze 305 9th Street = u Huntington Beach �� 5" Begin forwarded message: JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. From: 0 Suzanne Owens<suzanneowens(a)_verizon.net> Date:June 22,2009 8:19:00 PM PDT To:linda.wine(a-)surfcitY-hb.oM Subject:Save Triangle Park/Main Street Library TO: Linda Wine City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Owens 309 9th Street Huntington Beach Please do not consider any change in the existing Triangle Park and Main Street Library. I believe access to the open green space of this small park,and the library services provided by this branch of the library, are essential community features to downtown Huntington Beach residents. I am against the elimination of Triangle Park because of the high population density in downtown,since nearly all single family residences are built on 25 feet wide lots,which means there are few open green spaces within walking distance for downtown residents. The elimination of this park would inevitably lead to increased congestion and would have a negative impact on the quality of life to downtown Huntington Beach residents. Certainly,the city agrees that downtown is already a high density area,and more should be done to provide additional open spaces,rather than eliminate those already in use. iangle Park is a longtime existing landmark for downtown residents and their visitors,and it is closely linked as one of the tirst identifying features viewed when entering the downtown area. i Our Main Street Library currently provides library services within walking distance to downtown residents. The elimination of this library would necessitate driving several miles to other libraries,and would do nothing to enhance literacy to children in our community. Certainly,the city recognizes that less driving should be promoted,rather than eliminating local services and thereby requiring additional time and driving to utilize a public library. An additional concern that has been discussed among my neighbors is the cost of this proposed project. It has not been clear where the city plans to obtain funding for this construction project. Given the overwhelming cuts to public services currently taking place throughout the state,at every level of governmen. cuts to established public education programs, I am extremely disappointed that the City of Huntington Beach would even consider removing Triangle Park and our Main Street Library. 2 r Wine, Linda From: Wine, Linda Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:05 AM Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb;Villasenor, Jennifer; Mulvihill, Leonie; Wine, Linda Subject: FW: TRIANGLE PARK- HB NEWS Article October 1950-AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER Attachments: 1950 Article.jpg From: Villasenor, Jennifer Sent: Thursday,June 25, 2009 8:01 AM To: Wine, Linda Cc: Fauland, Herb Subject: FW: TRIANGLE PARK- HB NEWS Article October 1950 -AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER Linda, Please forward to all Planning Commissioners. From: Gloria Alvarez [mailto:gloria@e-mailcom.com] Sent: Wednesday,June 24, 2009 3:39 PM To: Villasenor,Jennifer Cc: aburris@ocregister.com Subject: TRIANGLE PARK- HB NEWS Article October 1950 -AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER _Jennifer, Attached is the Huntington Beach News article dated Thursday, October 5, 1950 The article states that the HB City Council mtg will be reviewing bids for the new Library to be built in Triangle Park. Please forward to Planning Commissioner Tom Livengood per his request. Thank you, Gloria Alvarez Kramer v'' DD JUN 2 5 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 ►000 Aerial 2 " m Q Q 2 - a mamma W loop W�0. dat nrar- his dome. City officials SpecialL b Lawsuit I minted taut that the ao:r. at i,alule o Cil coarge:; are set (off tic ar Iv ,, tt►.1e � from thfs, spot. The mar?r.r has Al tv Charles A. Haber. ('raarnri lrn+ten lt•ioncl,;;►° ni;ttt to Settle Bids Pity Clerk John L, F1c rt- a r Marl tttr7 . $�itt,Ut?t) 1arti�suit lNed Hedrick Hurt A �;p . vial rrtectrrag of the City- the flied by . COUrtc'.1 ha,� been called fur 5 P.M.' S. 1i6nderson, sun of �tlr. ' Battle 1+Icarr+l:tti�• (JJctab�•t g, to select- or- Irs. Edwin A. Ven(tevr ;a rt. rrjrc t Utcfs un two Municipal• 5Aft. t-c: Ned 11. Hc�dric lc, l7rnt?t- -la ware Atmp. f p.st;u4"ts, the cotlgtrucliaau of tlii_-_ ('r Or Mrs. Harold Flight. 32o nth e doing some Work for the � Ile'.v librat •y ►rt Triririgle Pm_k an St., Hr, ntita;gtort Fae,-trlr, has beers t tc� 7TI Urrt and restrt c,cin� work tit July, Fia?rtrler:9un c�?t;�rgf�ci � � r- received personal inim y ' reported Wounde"i in :rc•t iott ,ta 011 1 1 t)1 St. 4 - K()rea r_ati• the dep arttttom (4 deg- Fiiti.c for. t)otl-t 'ioi)s were openeCt,_.... o ttte neglect and c'tara�lcss- , • fst:c. ; S, Mottc ,tti night,'.s regular first of ! t4ac� City ntfr ^ is. the mi-tath !;cssjort. All were re. *tta', < l:titnecl tft:it ?itrttlaxe-- ; -1rw. - E1igltt. said t�c�r t+r ,�tlret' It'tr��ri t�,► tltt+ 4,r�ci;;t�Jnt City Erta il•krl�l t;,.a an avr-tal bomb �1°r•;;ttc� ltet• Ft•�r7t .t ttcrsl+ii:ti in giliver• George I.',, eaters for art;. t,? , 4 4,y city officials, testa -Lapltt" 'that � he hnd injured hi, .•rlk5ix anti report. utter the Independence right tttrnri. rlur�ing hand Io :��trtri C)rtiy tv.-o iittns Wd on the lit ek'-r�t'tiatio n artcl that it ex- Combat. tttat riot �.t`t'i+r�trsl�'. 1)t•:1r•y, and McClellan,,. � . in hits .hamd, eausing, "sim- . Hedrick, 32, %vent, ovs_,vsv;ks Aizgl. LosAit:;cles, offered to do the ►etttry of both bones of the 1 tartrl .as as 2,th Irtfanfry replace- task for Sl20.;"t) and ,fake Kunst,- ore ar m, multiple lacers- , ntrrrt, She said. Ile is rt W<aa•Iti Long fle ich, estimalked $145,753. if right car. both Farms and War 11 veteran. having fotap;ht in F'ivv closc: bids were I-cad bjr- i external wotimis of riglatj : teen; Gtrineir, the Philippines and (,'rty Clurk John L, Henricksen on necessitating the rtargical ll ataall, Ito also serve) t•:rtil ihv the 17111 tit. w,trk ,- Sully ildilaet':, M of major p -ortions of .right ' army ra,f Occupation in (*wrrt RN , � �1r3,;i;i.',;1;'i; ortfgiih Co. $13,447.48; , Icrae•ing oniv the right a Another Sister. M IN, V J J°OIM J. Swig art Si !.11•923.85; Cox A index f:nger." r Stewart, lived nt,. 1_40,111 Wilson, $21,58.1.53; 1t, J. Noble .tnb iW s pfdked tip 41 it i i4'l1divtry CRY.' t i�i� r _..•��. Wine, Linda From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:59 AM ro: Wine, Linda;Villasenor, Jennifer; Fauland, Herb Subject: FW: Downtown library plans From: Eric Alden [mailto:ericaiden@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:37 AM To: Fritzal, Kellee Subject: Downtown library plans Hi Kellee, I live downtown and I am in favor of the changes being proposed for the library and adjoining park. The vocal minority that show up to protest are always the same, myopic, and resistant to change. The positive changes being made downtown will afford us all a better quality of life and help to improve our property values as well. Let's get a final overview of the proposed plans and vote on it! Good luck, Eric Alden. l�DO ! JUN 2 5 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Kathy Belohovek[disneydamsel@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:25 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Triangle Park Hello Linda, As a Huntington Beach resident for over 50 years I would like to express my opinion on the Triangle Park and Main Street Library. People need that essential community connection to there city and the park and library provide this to the resident not just in the direct area, but resident miles away. I believe that having the cultural arts center in the middle of a residential neighborhood is ludicrous. Having seen all the changes to downtown that is now a circus of drunks. For us that have lived in Huntington Beach from the 60's that downtown was a quaint main street that is now all for bring in tourist to make the big bucks. Please consider the people that make this city there home. Please stop this Cultural Center. Kathy Belohovek Resident Since 1960 - t JUN 2 8 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT 1 111--i nt Request Page ] of 1 Request: 1167 Entered on: 06/15/2009 09:52 AM By: Johanna Stephenson Customer Information Name:Peggy O'Neal Phone:714-960-0100 Address: Alt.Phone: Email:beachinpob@campearth.com Request Classification Topic:Proposed Major Development Projects Request type:Question Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Jennifer Villasenor Entered Via:Phone i Description From: Peggy O'neal[mailto:beachinpob@campearth.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14,2009 2:40 PM To:CITY COUNCIL Subject: library and triangle park Members of the HB City Council: Please add two more voices to those residents and constituents opposing the development of the downtown, main street library and triangle park. Seriously,we are not opposed to removing building that have passed their prime, nor the development of bare,weed infested lots anywhere in the greater downtown area. However,the current library structure is classic Surf City,and although HB will never look like Irvine with all its open spaces and beautiful parks,the effort should be made to retain what we have! Peggy O'Neal Gerald Barnes 20 year 6th Street residents 714-960-0100 Reason Closed Date Expect Closed:06/29/2009 Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=257949&type=0 6/2:91120:>�-_ Page I of I Villasenor, Jennifer From: janet@janethayden.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:21 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: (wine@surfcity-hb.org Subject: HB downtown library HB City Planning Committee: When I was at the downtown HB library on Friday checking out a book I learned that the city is thinking of demolishing the library to redevelop the property. What a tragedy! The library has been there my whole life! I grew up in Huntington Beach and grew up checking out books from the old downtown library since the mid-70's. I love that awesome huge window in the main room and I love that spot of green space downtown! Don't you realize that it creates a traditional town square in the heart of the city? The library should be preserved as a historic landmark. I'm wondering if you know if there is a foundation set up yet to protect the library and preserve it as a landmark? If so, I will be one of the first to donate to the cause and to help petition or do whatever else is needed. Please ,TaE—1 know what I can do to help ensure that this important historic building remains as it stands, agiong with the open space just north of the library. Thank you for your consideration. Janet Hayden 7651 Clay Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 917-589-7604 cell 7/6/2009 Page I of 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:23 PM To: Fritzal, Kellee Cc: Villasenor, Jennifer; Machado, Jason Subject: Downtown Specific Plan 1-1i Kellee, To follow up on my voice mail to you from this morning, I would like you to confirm to me by email that the Downtown Residents Association's written comments in our January 22, 2009 submission to Jason Machado is a part of the City's official permanent record of comments to the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2009. Jason confirmed to me by phone on Monday that he in fact had received this January 22, 2009 package. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to make sure that this submission is included in the City's official permanent records for this December draft. Also, I noticed that for the new June 12th draft of the DTSP, Chapter 8 in missing from your website. There are a couple of pages from this chapter, the Action Plan, that I am interested in looking at. Please let me know how I can get to this Chapter 8. Finally, I assume that the June 12th DTSP has a written public comment procedure. As the Downtown Residents Association would like to provide written comments on this draft,please direct me to the City's instructions and deadline for providing these comments. Thank you for your help and prompt response. Richardson Gray 7/6/2009 Page 1 of'1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee _ Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:59 AM To: Wine, Linda; Villasenor, Jennifer; Fauland, Herb Subject: FW: Downtown library plans From: Eric Alden [mailto:ericalden@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday,June 25, 2009 8:37 AM To: Fritzal, Kellee Subject: Downtown library plans Hi Kellee, I live downtown and l am in favor of the changes being proposed for the library and adjoining park. The vocal minority that show up to protest are always the same, myopic, and resistant to change. The positive changes being made downtown will afford us all a better quality of life and help to improve our property values as well. Let's get a final overview of the proposed plans and vote on it! Good luck, Eric Alden. 7/6/2009 Wine, Linda From: Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.com] Mon ;Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:21 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Planning Commission Meeting on July 14th JUL 0 6 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Linda, PLANNING DEPT. Please make this e-mail part of the public record for the July 14th Planning Commission meeting. Thank you, Kim Kramer A Story of Development in Downtown Huntington Beach. If You Build It,They Will Come. Unfortunately for the residents of Downtown Huntington Beach,the"it" in this case is a brand new Cultural Arts Center and"they" are hundreds of thousands of tourists poised to invade their residential community. This is not a new story;the City Council wants to create revenue for the city and the residents want to protect their quality of life. The"Man Bites Dog"feature of this story is that the City Council, in their quest for revenue, is willing to demolish the historic Main Street Library, destroy the adjacent Triangle Park, and build the single largest tourist attraction in the history of Huntington Beach, right in the heart of its oldest and most historic residential neighborhood. Thousands of residents from all over town have signed a petition protesting this re-development project and have inundated the Planning Commission with e-mails and public comments. But the fight goes on all the way to September when the Planning Commission and then the City Council will vote on this issue. It appears Mayor Bohr has already made up his mind however. He was quoted recently in the Orange County Register making the following observation: "It is a library with a patch of green space in a triangle that people bring their dogs to pee on." Some residents are calling his comments arrogant and dismissive. "Thank you, Mr. Mayor,but this library and patch of green space represent a significant quality of life issue to more than 3000 residents that live in this community." says Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association spokesperson, Kim Kramer. Sometimes it's a park like every other park in the city where families congregate and enjoy themselves. And sometimes it serves as a buffer zone to protect them from the late night drunkenness, rowdiness and crime that permeates the neighborhood at 2AM on weekend nights when the Main Street bars close. And now the City Council wants to add a few hundred thousand more tourists to this neighborhood? The residents say, "No Thank You!" f he proposed Cultural Arts Center will be three stories, 35 feet tall and 40,000 square feet,which is 4 times i larger than the current library and 16 times larger than the average home in the neighborhood. The proposal includes a small library,performing arts center,retail carts,kiosks,museum, art gallery, restaurants serving alcohol, underground parking, shipping and receiving dock, outdoor accessible public bathrooms and a ridiculously small green belt that is destined to be forever dark and dismal as it will be built in _ the shadows between the Townsquare Condominiums and the new Cultural Arts Center. The residents of Huntington Beach have joined together in solidarity to protest this redevelopment project. The HBDRA wishes to preserve our city's history, culture and quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach and keep the residential communities for the enjoyment of the residents and not tourists. 2 Page 1 of 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:53 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: Fw: MAIN STREET LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS From: Ruthe Gorman To: Fritzal, Kellee; Machado, Jason Cc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Sent:Thu Jan 15 14:24:29 2009 Subject: MAIN STREET LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS an a long-time resident of Huntington Beach and live at 726 Main Street. I am also a volunteer at the Main Street branch of the HB Library. The purpose of this e-mail is to urge the City not to build at 4-story center on the library property for a number of reasons, including the following: 1. The building would wipe out the"green" space residents now enjoy. This site is virtually the only park.-like open space in the immediate vicinity. 2. Its monolithic size and height would dwarf the nearby buildings and result in lower residential property values in the surrounding area. There are no 4-story buildings downtown, including the commercial district, and the proposed building would be totally incompatible and stand out like a sore thumb. 3• The new center would result in the eventual closing of the Main Street library, which would be a ma!',-.,.- _'is to the many downtown (and other) residents who rely on the library for many reasons. It would also create a hardship for senior citizens and others who are unable to drive to the Talbert Street library. Also, the library is used constantly by many visitors who utilize the computers and other research materials. I am not against progress and have watched the downtown area evolve from being a rundown eyesore in the early 1980s to a thriving and attractive location enjoyed by both residents and tourists. However, a huge 4-story structure plopped down in the middle of a peaceful residential area does not represent progress. It is a stupid concept and building it would be detrimental to the quality of life now enjoyed by both residents and visitors. Ruthe Gorman 726 Main Street (714 960-1846 1/27/2009 Public Comments on Draft DTSP RECEIVED JAM 2 21009 Bob Corona (714) 960-6990 (714) 342-4095 (cell) • Development standards—consider allowances for clear glass to top a maximum 42" height wall; 25' required setback on PCH—reduce to 10' to allow for patios/landscaping other than lawn/turf • Design guidelines—good! Pictures and images shown in Design Guidelines generally good except corporate signage picture of Burger King (consider using different image to show good example of good corporate signage); stay away from trendy design themes—encourage architecture that will stand the test of time • Parking—trolley system—good idea! Shuttle service—good idea! tiered-parking structure at beach—not a good idea—will be problematic; best to leave beach and pier alone as it is main attraction for downtown • Wayfinding signs—good! • Chapters 7 and 8 —good! 2nd right turn lane on Goldenwest to PCH should be of highest priority Page I of 3 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Fritzal, Kellee Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:15 AM To: Villasenor, Jennifer; Fauland, Herb Cc: Hess, Scott Subject: FW: Team One—Jeffs comments From: Kellee Fritzal [mailto:kel970@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 9:58 AM To: Fritzal, Kellee Subject: City of Huntington Beach 1/23/2009 Redevelopment and Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA RE: Comment on D.T.S.P. 1. My goal is that items within the plan be changed or deleted if an item would deter development from its maximum potential or practical implementation. Small code items can have the net effect of making a project not "pencil." Make the code as specific as possible allowing Administrative approval (Director and Zoning Administration) except for "Major Projects" which would require D.R.B. and Planning Commission Review. All other projects should be non-discretionary. (Section 2..5 and Permitted Use Tables). 3a. (2.7) Definitions: Omit "Full block" and "Half Block" definitions and replace with definitions for "Major Project" and/or"Face Block": Net Lot area of 25,000 s.f. or 200 I.f.t. of street frontage. 3b. "Height of Building" add: excluding penthouse structures located 30' from property lines, not to exceed 10' above maximum height. 4. (3.2.6.2) Omit requirement to access only from alleys. Access could be from "side" streets including Walnut, Olive, Orange, Pecan, Acacia, Palm ("Tree Street") 5. (3.2.6.3) Change `full block" to "major projects" or "face block." 6. (3.2.10.2) Omit five foot setback for subterranean structures; utilities are in alleys and would not affect most streets. Public Works can address on a "Major Project" review.. 7. (3-2.13) Mixed-Use Projects: Omit#3. Common entries work well, access to residential area can be limited by 1/26/2009 Page 2 of 3 elevator or door key/card. Omit#4. Shared parking for guests and commercial is desired_ Omit#6 Not needed. Change #7 to allow for Live/Work access. Omit "state-of-the-art" to open to interpretation. 8. (3.2.15.1.4 Private) Open Space: Add "planted (vine) fence" and change to 60" height (privacy). Also, glass dividers. 9. (3.2.18) Refuse and Recycling: Omit#3. Most trash rooms are in the buildings in downtown. Add to #5, Building Code approved trash chutes can meet this requirement. 10. (3.2.19) Affordable Housing: All sites are within Project Area? 11. (3.2.20) Residential Buffers: Change to apply to the perimeter of all districts_ Figure 3.-8 is good illustration of height, density and `cake' setbacks to achieve density with less impact to residential, make illustration larger for better reference. Eliminate "state-of-the- art" in #7, maybe add scrubber requirements at perimeter projects only. 12. (3.2.22.5) Projecting or Hanging Sign: Are these not commonly called "Blade" signs? 13. (3.2.24.1.4) Allow outdoor dining next to building on Main to 5th Street parkways. 14. (3.2.24.3) Parking for Outdoor Dining: Omit maximum tables and seats, difficult to enforce. Set area (1,200 s.f.) is easier to control. 15. (3.2.26.1) Parking Space Dimensions: Change space dimensions to 8.5' wide by 18' long with 25' Aisle and allow for column /wall incursions except at door swing area. Change notes in matrix to correspond. 16. (3.2.26.10.1) c.) District Special Standard: Remove 50% requirement and add that `x' number of parking spaces are available to be used in the in-lieu fee program. In-lieu parking is allowed for commercial /guest pay king only. In-lieu fee amounts established by City Council. City will provide new packing spaces in a timely manner for in-lieu parking program when current residual spaces have been allocated. 17. (3.3.1.3) Permitted Uses: Expand "green zone" residential on ground floor" to 3rd Street east and 2nd Street/ 1 st Street southwest to Alley at PCH. These areas not viable as commercial. 1/26/2009 Page 3 of 3 18. (3-40) Permitted Uses: Add Family Doctor, Dentist and Quick Clinic, Emergicare to permitted uses. 19. (3-42) Summary of Development Standards District 1 Commercial Only: Minimum Parcel Size: -5,000 s.f. /50' frontage Maximum Building Height: 40' / 3-stories Major project/ Face Block—50' /4-stories with cake step- backs Front Yard Setback: Minimum 0', Maximum 5' Public Open Space: N/A except Major Projects = 4% + Paseo + Public Art Piece 20. (3.3.1.8) Building Height: See above 21. (3.3.17) Maximum Density: 40 units/ acre Major Project: 60 Units /acre 22. (3.3.1.14) Public Open Space: See above 23. (3.3.1.15) Storefront 3) add low-e coatings permitted. 24. (3-57) Maximum Height: 50' /4 story with cake step-backs 25. (3-59) Cultural Arts Plaza: Add alternative street closure designs to communicate conceptual nature of this area. 26. (Figure 3-5) Alley Dedications: Alley at Main Street east should be uneven dedication (existing large dedication on one side) 27. (3.2.22.1) General Sign Standards.- 3) Projects may have five users but only need signs for two users. Change to "five users with signs." 28. Plan should address undergrounding of electrical distribution system, future transformer and vault locations. 1/26/2009 R.F,: Comments to Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan RECEIVED JAN 2 g Q 100. After reviewing the Draft Specific Plan I have the following comments: 1. The Specific Plan states as one the goals and objectives are to increase city revenue and create a well balance mix of land uses for both residences and visitors. The Plan however, emphasizes development for more visitors during peak time usage than development for local residence during non-peak times. The amount of revenue the city derives is directly related to usage. During peak times there is only limited extra capacity to drive more revenue. During non-peak times (49% of the days per the Parking Study)there is much more potential to increase revenues. If the City's goal is to increase revenue and have a well balance mix of land uses, then the emphasis should be on increasing usage when there is more headroom for revenue, and focus on local residence. 2_ Priority needs to focus on the future development of Walnut Avenue as a pedestrian link with Pacific City. Currently, the emphasis is using PCH as the primary pedestrian link between downtown and Pacific City. PCH is uninviting as a pedestrian link because Pierside Colony lacks ground floor retail, creating a non-pedestrian friendly"retail dead zone". Only the north side of Walnut Avenue could provide a continuous stretch of retail uses and a pedestrian friendly link between Main Street and Pacific City. The Specific Plan should use the same street concepts for Walnut Avenue as it proposes for 5t' Street. A strong early priority needs to be given to straightening Walnut Avenue with Pacific View to allow an easy to follow linkage to Main Street that will be visually understandable by visitors. 3. Development north of Orange Avenue along Main Street is being proposed for high-density tourist oriented land uses. The emphasis should be for local residence land uses that bring a balance of retail uses to downtown. Retail use could include smaller format grocery store, hardware store, or service oriented stores. The smaller format stores of Fresh & Easy would be feasible near this intersection. No hotels should be allowed north of Orange Avenue�and no development over three stories. 4. The block with the Main Street Library should remain as, open space. We already have a newly remodeled Performing Arts Center less than a mile along Main Street at Huntington High School and another facility at the Central Library. A third smaller facility with expensive underground parking is clearly not needed nor feasible. This block should remain as open public space and no 4 or 5 story development should be allowed. 5. While the city has limited control over the cars we drive, the city controls the parking and rates. The new Plan should create a few parking spaces for Low Emmission Vehicles (LEV) or Low Speed Vehicles (LSV) to encourage their use, minimizing traffic, and lower environmental emissions. Newport Beach and other beach communities already provide smaller parking spaces for LEV and LSV with lower parking fees. The Parking Study that is a part of this plan has incorrect conclusions and future strategies. The Parking Study only focused on daily parking charges and not monthly charges. Employee's working downtown do not utilize free street parking located blocks away, when they can park in the Main Promenade Garage or the beach lots for 57¢ per day($150/220 work days=57¢ per day). The beach lots and a description of Pacific City's parking facility should be mentioned and studied. Frankly, the downtown area has an abundance of parking when compared to other nearby beach towns of Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach. The parking study concludes it reaches capacity only 5%of the days. There is a need to direct drivers to available empty spaces, but there is rarely a shortage of empty stalls. 6. Objective 2 (1.5.2.3) states the plan should encourage development of underused existing properties. The east side of Pierside Pavilion is a"retail dead zone". This area needs new ideas and city assistance. One solution: create a"Gallery Row" along both sides of the east plaza. Move many of the vendor's from the upper pier parking area to the new"Gallery Row"_ The vendors will have a permanent home, pay more revenue to the city, and reinforce the link between PCH and Walnut Avenue. The Plan should also address the closed theatres. I look forward to participating in this planning process. Richard Plummer 940 11'' Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)960-4542 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org Website: www.hbtomorrow.org RECEIVED JAN 26 2009 January 23, 2009 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ref: Downtown Specific Plan Draft Attn: Jennifer Villasenor Here are our comments on this well done, professional specific plan. Land Use & Development Standards I. All Districts — Some residential development standards are in excess of existing zoning ordinance standards.This would result in overbuilding a site and diminish the quality of life for residents and the public. Recommendations: Ensure residential development standards do not exceed the development standards approved for Bella Terra II. Page 3-42 and 3-43. Change the maximum density for residential only table for 1", 2ad and Lake from the proposed 60 du/ac to existing density. Reflect the same in 3.3.1.7. II.Page 3-56 Cultural Arts Overlay The cultural arts overlay allows an intensity of use that is incompatible with existing residential uses.The purpose of the cultural arts overlay should be revisited and practicality assessed. Funding, usage and community support questions should be answered before the plan is adopted. Recommendations: Page 3-56,5) Maximum site coverage should be changed to 50%. City standard has always been 50%. 60% would allow too massive a building. Page 3-56 7) Maximum building height should be changed to 35 feet. Buildings in this area should be limited to three stories to avoid glaring incompatibility with adjacent residential structures. Page 3-57 Maximum intensity FAR should be changed to 2.25 from 3.0. A massive building would be out of character for this location. Either the building needs should be reduced or another site should be found. Page 3-57 8) Upper story setback shall be required. City design guidelines require upper story setbacks. Planning Commission and Design Review Board review should be stated. III. Permitted Uses District 7 Recommendations: Parking hots on the seaward side of the bluffs shall not be allowed if automobiles and traffic interfere with the aesthetics, safety, views and use of the bluff top and beach.The public has previously voiced significant opposition to seaward side parking proposals. Recommendation: Determine if the proposed project assuages the public's concerns as stated above before inclusion in the plan. HBT Downtown Specific Plan Subcommittee Ed Kerins Mark Porter Page I of I Stephenson,Johanna ��� From: Dapkus,Pat Sent: Monday,January 26, 2009 8:50 AM To: Stephenson,Johanna;Van Dom, Kay Subject: FW: Main Street Library From: Mark Leeson[maito.mleeson@thematlockgroup.corn] Sent:Saturday,January 24,2009 8:23 PM To:CITY COUNCIL Subjecft Main Street Library Dear City Council Members: As a long time resident of Huntington Beach I would like to make known my strong opposition to the proposed development on the Main Street Library site_ Open space in the downtown area is already in short supply_ In recent years the practice of building two houses on the original 50 foot lots has already degraded the atmosphere of our city_ Our tax dollars would be much better used cleaning up the alleys in the downtown area_ This will enhance the look and feel of Huntington Beach far more than one more over budget underutilized developers dream: Yours truly, Mark l_Leeson 515 Pecan Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Off_ 1-714-596-6648 Cell 1-714-308-6612 1/2612009 Roger and Marilyn Smith 501 Pecan Avenue, Huntington Beach,CA 92648/714-969-5125/rocketguy99(a�socaLrr.com January 22,2009 Mayor Keith Bohr and Council Members Carchio,Coerper,Green, Hansen, Hardy,and Dwyer City of Huntington Beach via city.council@surfcity-hb_org Re: Downtown Specific Plan New Performing Arts Center Dear Mayor Bohr: As residents of downtown Huntington Beach,we are very concerned about the possibility of an Arts Center on the property at 525 Main Street and the many identified and yet to be identified consequential problems_ We love Huntington Beach. We love the park at 525 Main Street where many people enjoy playing sports, exercising their dogs,relaxing outdoors,and a multitude of other special activities. We're a city of walkers, bicyclers,pet-lovers,and nature-lovers,and all of us see the 525 Main Street park as a refuge and oasis that greatly contributes to the quality of our lives and brings in balance and beauty to an otherwise growing congestion of concrete,traffic,and loss of historical preservation_ We share in the affection so many people feel for Huntington Beach,and ours is boosted every time another person voices their awe over the regal ambiance and sense of preserved history along Main Street,from Yorktown to 6m Street. Really,we're yet to have an out-of-town guest who drives that route who doesn't rave about the unique and amazing feeling created by that stretch. The awe 3s never about just one thing,but includes appreciation of and amazement over the charming homes and yards,the historical high school buildings,the Lake Park,the 525 main Street library,and the 525-Main Street park. We love taking our grandchildren and others across the street to enjoy the 525 Main Street park. We spend quality time in the 525 Main Street library. We often stroll up Main Street toward Lake Park and sometimes cross the street with the children's crossing guard. My primary point in all of these descriptions is that the proposed Cultural Center would eliminate and/or drastically minimize the charm and beauty of the area between Yorktown and Oh Street. Having Main Street as an access route to a performing arts center would be like a mini-4`h of July event throughout all the.scheduled venues- What would happen to the tranquility and ambiance between York Town and Ob Street? Would a crossing guard be able to ensure safety for those trying to cross the street and enjoy the neighborhood and park,or would there even be a neighborhood and park that would still be enjoyable? Without the 525 Main Street park,many people would lose the quality of life that it affords and,I believe,the City would lose even more by jeopardizing the balance that has made us an attractive and amazingly unique City. Also,I believe that the City's Specific Plan,particularly in 4.2-1.2,4.2.1.3,and 42.1-7,points out the potential for extreme negative consequences to 525 Main Street's surrounding residences and residents. SiWrely, Roger d Marilyn Smittv c: Mr.Fred Wilson,City Administrator Mr. Paul Emery,Deputy City Administrator Mr.Robert Hall Deputy City Administrator Ms.Elizabeth Shier-Burnett,Chairperson,Planning Commission Ms.Blair Farley,Vice-Chair,Planning Commission Planning Commissioners Delgleize,Livengood Scandura,and Speaker Roger and Marilyn Smith 501 Pecan Avenue, Huntington Beach,CA 92648/714-969-5125/rocket�uv99 n socal.rr.com ---Original Message ----- _ From: Marilyn Smith To: CITY COUNCIL : Bohr, Keith Cc:Wilson. Fred Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:27 PM Subject: Thank you for your response—Re: Very Concerned About the Possibility of an Arts Center at 525 Main Street Dear Mayor Bohr, Thank you for your prompt response to our email. We appreciate your stating that you will keep our concerns in mind. We are hopeful that you will not only keep our concerns in mind, but that you will find that our concerns are significant and shared by many of your constituents. None of us see our concerns as merely about a"green patch" in our neighborhood. The DSP proposal would mean losing a primary recreation area for people and pets; suffering the effects of demolition, construction, new and changed streets, and having our home addresses changed. To a community who loves their residential neighborhood, this proposal is about a loss of green and open views, drastic increases in traffic, looking at more parking structures, looking at more multi-storied buildings, suffering negative consequences of deliveries and delivery vehicles, dealing with lighting and noise that is incompatible with residential living, and so much more. The proposed DSP would impose negative impacts on the quality.of life of many residents and visitors, and threaten their safety as well. (How would the crossing guard at the School Crossing on Main Street deal with the increased traffic and how safe would it be for children and others to cross at that crossing? Or would the Crossing Guard be one more thing that the City would need to get rid of to"expandCmprove a cultural node"?) This DSP would equate to a lack of appropriate respect for existing residences and residents. It would mean drastic increases in traffic and extreme deterioration of the safety, ambiance, and historical charm. Turning 525 Main Street into a"cultural node"would mean destroying what Huntington Beach residents and visitors consider to be a park. Not calling this area a"park"reminds me of the saying that,"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck." 525 Main Street does look.like a park, does function as a park, is designated on the City's posted sign as a park,and has park regulations listed for park occupants to follow while enjoying activities typically enjoyed at a park(hard to refer to this area as a "green patch). Please accept our communication as heartfelt and enthusiastic and our hopeful attempt at stressing the importance of our concerns. We do believe that we want what is really best for the City of Huntington Beach. There are other sites that could be used, would have better access routes, pnd would cause less damage to existing neighborhoods, residences and residents. Thanks again, Mayor Bohr. We look forward to opportunities to join you in finding the best way to honor these significant concerns. Sincerely, Roger and Marilyn Smith c: Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator Mr.Paul Emery,Deputy City Administrator Mr.Robert Hall Deputy City Administrator Ms.Elizabeth Shier-Burnett,Chairperson,Planning Commission Ms.Blair Farley,Vice-Chair,Planning Commission Planning Commissioners Delgleize,Livengood,Scandura,and Speaker ----Original Message----- From •Bdhr:;Keith" Villasenor; Jennifer born: Fritzal, Kellee ent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8A7 AM To: Smalewitz, Stanley; Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb;Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: FW: Draft EIR for Downtown Plan FYI --- --Original message----- From . lgeisse@aol.com [mailto:lgeisse@aol.com] Se7:.,: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:00 PM To- f'_ =_teal, Kellee; richardson.gray@yahoo.com Subject: Draft EIR for Downtown Plan Please add these comments to the Draft EIR for the Downtown Plan. Sirs: I am not in favor of losing parkland for any project, especially when other, better, options exist. The downtown park should not be developed. The park will always be a place of respite and retreat in the midst of the huge project you desire. It nee { to stay. As President of the Parks Legal Defense Fund, we will support the defense of this park against any attempt to develop it. Thank you. arry Geisse, M.D. (resident of Huntington Beach) 1 -- January 22, 2009 In regards to: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan No 5 Section 3.3.1.20 City of Huntington Beach Economic Development Attn: Nova 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Nova: It has come to our attention, at this late hour, that the City of Huntington Beach, and in particular the Huntington Beach Police Department, wishes to amend the Downtown Specific Plan No 5 Section 3.3.1.20. As Hurricanes has been a business member of our downtown community since 1992 we have seen many changes over the years with our continued growth and an influx of many new businesses. Certain issues that are included in the revised plan 3.3.1.20 offered some great concern. To place a blanket standard across the board because of some businesses in the area does not seem, basically, very patriotic. The kitchen being open during all hours is one of our concerns. As we are not in a major city such as Los Angeles or San Francisco, people do not tend to eat after 9:00pm. Our current kitchen hours are from 11:00am to 11:00pm and we average 20 covers from 9:00pm to 11:00pm on most off nights and a few more on the weekend. To spend labor dollars that our not necessary is not good for businesses that are already struggling in a bad economy. However, understanding the need to combat customers becoming over intoxicated and becoming a problem, Hurricane's has, for the last year, taken upon itself that on Fridays and Saturdays and major holidays to offer a Free food product, i.e. tacos, brats etc from 12:00am to 1:00am. This has been successful to our customers and easy on our labor as we can have a bus boy handle the buffet product. This may be a better alternative to keeping a kitchen fully staffed and open during all hours of the day. As long as there is a food product available for customers should be the minimum standard, not a fully staffed kitchen. HURRICANES BAR & GRILL 200 MAIN STREET SUITE 201 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 —2— January 23,2009 Restaurant Alcohol Permit Fee and Security Fee. Are these fees just required by the merchants in the downtown business district or does this apply to any restaurant doing business in the City of Huntington Beach? As merchants, we are already burden with many annual fees, high rents, licenses, etc. these fees seem a bit discriminatory to apply to just businesses in the downtown area. If this was to be applied City wide, we could understand, but do not feel that these are fair in a democracy such as ours. Also the time restraints do not comply with the State of California Alcohol Beverage Control which states that alcohol can be served between the hours of 6:00am and 2:00am. At Hurricanes, we are opened from 11:00am to 2:00am with a "last call" at 1:25am daily. This gives our customers ample time to finish there drinks, close out there tabs, and get a cab. We understand there are some businesses on the street that choose to get that last drink sale to the very last minute. Again it is not fair to penalize an entire community for the shortcomings a few bad apples. Again, if this is a city wide ordinance we could understand but not just a downtown issue. By limiting alcohol sales to 1:00am means that we would have to do a "last call" at 12:30am to ensure that all customers are closed out and vacated at the appropriate time. This is a significant income loss over the span of a year when you take into consideration major holidays. If customers can't get what they want they will choose another city to do business in. Some of us remember the 1990's when we use to close the businesses on the e of July. Within a few short years we had no business on that day and it took many years to get it back. In 1992, I believe there were around 19 liquor licenses' in the downtown area; I believe we now have something like 38. If the city was concerned about problems, why does it continue to offer permits to these types of establishments and then are upset when they do business. That would be a better place to start. Put a limit on permits in the downtown community, not penalize businesses that have invested years and millions of dollars establishing there businesses and run good operations. In the past we use to have 1st block slow down consumption around 1:15am, 2nd block was 1:30am and 3rd block was around 1:45am. This allowed a nice flow and release on the street so that not all businesses were dumping 100's of people on the street at one time. It worked in the past why can't we discuss this with the merchants and get everyone to agree to a "last call" policy. —3— Januaty 23,2009 All other conditions, while a bit extreme, should be acceptable for those businesses operating well run operations.We understand why the Huntington Beach Police are attempting to rectify the problems that have arisen over the past few years in our fine community. We offer our continued support and hope that these few changes can be amended to this program. Sincerely, General Manager A � — ► JAN 2 3 2,3 o 9 CEPA,9 M'=N7 CAE P p�kMp0j'rL Y &POS?,,b ,70 M� :5vlfiP — P-�,VW&- Puf 1 0 —AS WCA"VO)Ve 'blc* POO-- ou W-- uru� C/I 'pop fj P�V") 4f llft kgL �, L06NV 031J ):�M& olAu N-gi c A I FN AA Aw. PQJ r-VI-ill -fb --iW .Acftwf251(� r, StUJID P6f q Dfq � - � � _ 2 (pw V i R LJ�, UxGPeV OV, Pc5 ml'-�UVO� �Mt A W ) IOW f l sAA , T,i i S A?,,-�-v -il� OLD piss"/bL9, 2,oc4-,-O w rot, waii b-l� CLik�5 SJV15-PVAj7W lit PAEk/l/i� 1s 6r(1 � MIR Rtkck ou-r bms r� I zbb 5'9-Prl' L, UJOLA ftftt 1 �- �u�u� �IW Pff- SPayb5 )Wk,, 7o iVRP el p'- 0 pko4jrt m�w ctwarx)r W,-K-5, tv f &W ~ opwri j12-fty_5 op crl74gZ 016W6 , Wl�, C,5L44) hV57- A-ii �taywoh Ncvir, gPIW B"L j-s *a" }- yv% Downtown Specific Plan Amendment Comments from Mike Adams and Dick Harlow Draft Review 2/9/2009 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Purpose & Intent • "to ensure that planning regulations and guidelines provide direction with flexibility to accommodate both current and future development opportunities " The plan fails to provide a more flexible direction and introduces a greater amount of discretionary approvals. • "customizing the planning process and land use regulation" This intent could be realized if upon adoption of the Plan all future project proposals consistent with the Specific Plan could be permitted without further discretionary approval and environmental review. • "to promote orderly and viable development that meets the community's vision for the future..." The Plan does not present the community's vision, what can the downtown look like, what activities will be included and how is it implemented over what time frame? 1.3.1 Specific Plan (Consolidated Document) • "The Specific Plan eliminates the Downtown Parking Master Plan by combining the documents." While this is a positive approach, the draft Plan does not present a Parking Master Plan. The following parking questions need to be addressed up front. o Based on the current level of activity downtown the parking demand is spaces. o The current parking supply comprised of on-street and off-street public and private parking is spaces. o The current surplus of parking ( spaces)will allow for sq. ft. of additional development. o In order to achieve the invisioned potential development for the downtown additional parking spaces will be necessary, based on the proposed parking standards. o The proposed parking standards are based on the following assumptions and theories: o The additional necessary parking spaces can be provided at the following locations: 1.4.1 Existing Conditions • There needs to be a greater recognition of the current improvements including the entitled development projects. 1.4.2 General Plan • How will the General Plan be amended to facilitate the amended Specific Plan? 1.4.3 Existing Issues • Of the three items listed only parking is a true concern or issue. "the lack of pedestrian orientation of some locations, and the desire to expand development past the first three clocks of Main Street are salient concerns" These may be goals which could be implemented with Specific development standards but they are not major issues like, vehicular circulation, variety of commercial uses, expanded office and residential opportunities and public amenities. 1.4.3.1-1.4.3.7 • The issues identified in the above sections are only statements and should be readdressed as a goal or objective, or omitted. 1.5 Specific Plan Intent • Only two goals are identified (Vision/Land Use/Tourism), this seems like a very narrow focus. The goals should be a guideline to implement the issues identified in Section 1.4.3 1.5.1.1 Vision and Land Use • "Establish the Vision and create a land use plan ...." The Plan uses vague words and crude graphics to show the vision only the proposed cultural center is represented with an image. The proper mix of land uses for the downtown is not identified nor are any incentives proposed to attract specific uses. 1.5.1.1 Tourism • "Create an environment that promotes tourism..." Clear objectives and policies are not identified to implement the goal 1.5.2 Objectives and Policies • The objectives and policies are poorly phrased and do not relate to the two identified goals. • What constitutes a "well balanced" mix of land uses? • Why limit alcohol related uses as opposed to greater regulations? • What prior land use assumptions were never realized and where are the new assumptions identified. • Where is the plan identifying future public parking opportunities? • "working closely with the Coastal Commission and area stakeholders" are nice statements however, the phrase is not a policy to implement a healthy mix of land uses. • The issue to open or close Main Street to vehicular traffic should be part of a circulation goal or objective, not expressed as policy to implement future land uses. • How do the objective and policies related to architectural design implement the two goals identified? • Objective 3 should simply state to "ensure that adequate parking is available" the remaining sentence does not implement the identified goals. • The policy shown under objective 1 "to identify locations where public parking should be provided..." should be moved to objective 3. • Consider all available options for additional parking... is weak and should be replaced with the previous policy statement. 1.5.3 Vision • The link between the downtown and the ocean already exists. How will the Specific Plan further address this other than through pedestrian movement along Main Street? The "Vision" section should be placed before the implementing objectives and policies. Greater discussion needs to be conducted on the desires and benefits of closing Main Street to vehicular traffic and encouraging a greater emphasis on pedestrian circulation. • A concept design plan should be drawn for the Fifth Street right-of-way. Improvements have already been implemented in all three blocks, how will those improvements be modified? • What revised development and parking standards are proposed for the fifth street "primary corridor"? • The cultural center concept can be achieved without the need to reopen 6th Street. The current alignment of 6th Street to Main Street is a better route to move vehicular traffic around the downtown area. The curved portion of 6th Street can be removed to facilitate additional subterranean parking and reconstructed as an overcrossing with limited parking, similar to 5th Street in the Strand project. • The "elements central to the vision for downtown" should be rephrased as objectives and policies and not repeated. 1.6 Downtown Design Concepts • This entire section should be rephrased into goals, objectives and policies or omitted. Unless specific elements are proposed'to be uniquely implemented in the Downtown area differently than the City as a whole, this section does not belong in the Plan. Chapter 2 - Administration • This section provides the opportunity to streamline the project approval process as highlighted in section 1.1. All projects up to a specific size (50,000 sq. ft.) should be permitted without any discretionary review, if the proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines. Only projects proposing unique activities, design concepts or over an established size should be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Special Permits should be able to address all development standards up to a specific percentage of deviation (20%). • Special Permits should be acted upon by the Zoning Administrator and only by the Planning Commission if the overall project size warrants a Conditional use Permit. • Variances should only be necessary if the required deviation is beyond the scope of a Special Permit. • Temporary use permit should be acted upon by the Director. • Design Review Board action should only be necessary with a Conditional Use Permit. • The findings for a Special Permit should be edited to a smaller list, and only require one of the findings for approval. • The nonconforming use section needs further review and discussion. As outlined the provisions will discourage private improvements to nonconforming activities. 2.7 Definitions • Only identify words or phrases unique to the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan Chapter 3 - Land Uses and Development Standards 3.2.1 Design Guidelines • "All development shall comply with the spirit and intent___" This statement seems contrary to the previously expressed desire to obtain unique architectural design. The Design Guidelines reflect a uniformity and common style, which discourages a continuation of the eclectic pattern of design and development that create the unique aspects of the downtown area_ 3.2.2 Sustainable Development • "All development projects shall.contain sustainable features." The above statement needs to be properly defined and explained. Sustainable policies should be addressed City wide and are not unique to the downtown_ 3.2.4 Encroachments • The Plan should allow for architectural projection over sidewalks and plazas, subject to adequate vertical clearance. In addition, upper story and subterranean connection linking various blocks should be permitted_ These encroachments currently exist and have been approvable in the past. 3.2.5 Street Vacations • This section does not propose anything unique for the Downtown and therefore should be omitted. Again, the concept for removing vehicle traffic from Main Street is raised. The Main Street issue should be addressed in the Circulation section_ The Main Street closure should be addressed as an objective in a yet to be developed circulation goal or dropped from further discussion. 3.2.6 Alleys • Only the points which address zoning should be included. Repeating information which is City policy or procedure along with Public Works construction standards should be eliminated. • Any new pavement patterns or materials proposed should be highlighted in the Public Facilities section. A greater degree of discussion concerning the proposed design, materials and costs needs to occur before this recommendation is adopted. 3.2.8 Accessory Structures • "...such structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height nor be closer than10 feet to any other structure ..." This is an old standard no longer applicable to the downtown area and can only serve to confuse , impede or prevent development. 3.2.9 Building Separation • There is not a need for this provision 3.2.10 Subterranean Development • The building code definition of a semi-subterranean structure should be used, which is not greater than one-half of the floor to ceiling height, not 42". • Remove the shoring and raker discussion, these are not zoning issue and right-of-way encroachment was previously addressed. 3.2.11 Landscaping • The landscaping provisions should reflect an urban type design theme, the arbitrary minimum amount of landscaping will conflict with outdoor dining, pedestrian peseo development and private plaza areas. • The landscaping pattern should be part of the streetscape section, with setback and landscape standards consistent for the entire street. The proposed detailed standards for parking lot setbacks should be removed. • "...special sub-surface construction may be required." If this is referring to root barriers or other sidewalk protection devices just say so, and what will determine this need, the type of landscape materials specified? 3.2.12.1 Fences and Walls • "In the front yard fences and walls may not exceed 42 inches in height-- Add in the front yard setback. • 1s the articulation every 10-12 feet truly necessary for interior side property lines? • Why are smooth block walls prohibited? This is still an economical solution for interior side property lines. 3.2.13 Mixed-Use Projects • There should not be the need for separate access to the commercial and residential uses. Plaza Almaria has a shared front lobby and elevator for both office and residential activities. • If the parking is intended to be shared for residential, visitor, commercial and office tenants, why is there a need for"the spaces allocated for each use to be clearly marked"? • Access to common residential open space from the commercial portion of the project is not a problem. If you are trying to say, the open space is for the exclusive use of the residents, than so state. • The location and access to loading and trash areas in the downtown will most likely be from an alleyway. Locating these activities away from residential units may not be possible. • More specific information is necessary to understand the phrase "state of the art ventilization systems"' 3.2.14 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size • Why mention the Affordable Housing section, there is no reference to minimum unit size. 3.2.15 Open Space • Open Space may be a combination or private and common areas. The minimum amount should be 60 square feet per bedroom. • A minimum of 75% of the units shall be required to have private open space is unnecessary. An urban environment adjacent to the beach should provide sufficient justification for the elimination of the requirement for private open space. • Private open space shall be for the exclusive use of one unit, however if access is shared with other tenants that should be allowed. For example a series of rooftop courts or patios with a shared stairwell and access route. • Common Open Space should allow for rooftop solutions. • "Common Open Space ... shall be designed so that no dimension is less than 10 feet." should be rephrased to state a minimum dimension of 10 feet. • "Shall be open to the sky" should be modified to allow shade structures or building overhangs 50-75% open should be sufficient in the downtown. • The restrictive covenant provision discussion should be omitted. All multi- family projects will be subject to the creation of CC&R reviewable by the City, the State Department of Real Estate and recorded with the county. 3.2.18 Refuse Areas • The requirement that the refuse facility be located within 200 feet of each residential unit, seem arbitrary, eliminate the minimum dimension_ ® A shared refuse system for both residential and commercial can work, don't preclude the option. • Items 7, 8&9 are not zoning issues and should be eliminated from this section. 3.2.19 Affordable Housing Only include the reference to the City's Zoning Code. The overall approach to Affordable Housing is currently being reviewed and may result in changes to the Zoning Code_ The discussion of a different affordable percentage for Redevelopment areas should be omitted. 3.2.20 Residential Buffers ® The proposed change in permitted uses will now allow for residential activity anywhere downtown. Therefore, the entire discussion of residential buffers should be redrafted as a Design Guideline. As a regulation, the items listed are either too restrictive or too vague. Excessive upper story setbacks on all sides and minimum setbacks for service and trash areas are arbitrary and excessive. The Downtown area is very limited in parcel and project sizes; therefore, a greater amount of individual review and customized modifications will be necessary, minimum setback standards will simply artificially constrain development. 3.2.21 Historic Properties • The historically significant structures should be listed and the necessary process outlined. The illusion of discretionary approval should not be implied for either the Historic Resources Board or the Design Review Board. • If a historically significant structure is proposed for demolition or significant change, will the Director or Zoning Administrator be able to approve the various Entitlements or will all historic decisions be referred to the Planning Commission? 3.2.22 Signs • The entire sign section does not allow for innovative signage materials, sizes or design. The standards outlined are not unique to the Downtown and will make many of the existing signage non-conforming. This entire section should be redrafted to encourage a more creative approach and break away from the uniform standards found throughout the city. 3.2.24 Outdoor Dining ® The outdoor dining along PCH (within District 1) and Main Street (between PCH and Orange) should be identified on the proposed streetscape plans. The streetscape landscaping should be modified in response to the proposed requirement of a minimum 10-foot clear passage area and the potential outdoor dining area. • Issue #3 should be eliminated, issue #4 can express the same thing by modifying the clear passage requirement to six feet. • Issue #5 should be eliminated once the streetscape plan is approved, staff should not have the discretion to widen the passageway. Any future concerns could be addressed through the right-of-way License Agreement. • Private sidewalk areas should be allowed to further reduce the necessary passageway to five feet, due to the limited pedestrian traffic. A permanent cordon should not be required. • Issue #7 should be omitted, the visibility concerns for vehicular traffic is already addressed with the four way stop signs at all intersections. • Design standards for the 36" barrier proposed for outdoor dining with alcohol should be reworked to allow a greater variety of solutions. • Issue #10 omit the quality of outdoor furniture discussion. • Issue #11 should be rephrased to say, "no seating is allowed for kiosk food sales, instead of may not provide outdoor dining. 3.2.24.2 Operating Requirements • Issue #1 omit as worded this only states the obvious. • The entire section should be reworded to eliminate redundancy and better communicate the intent. • The finding for the License Agreement should be placed directly under the License Agreement discussion. • Termination of a License Agreement should not nullify the C.U.P. Outdoor Dining will generally be an extension of a restaurant, both approved with a single C.U.P. • The License Agreement and Maintenance Agreement should be combined. • The detailed repeat of the already approved outdoor dining procedures is not necessary and can be accomplished by reference_ 3.2.24.3 Parking • The entire section needs to be reworded if the intent is to reflect the regulations currently in effect. 3.2.24.4 Mushroom Heaters • Omit entire discussion not a zoning issue. The Building and Fire Departments can prepare a hand out enforcement should not be a Planning Department function. 3.2.24.5 Permitting • The permitting procedures for outdoor dining should be placed in the document before any of the design and operating regulations. • Outdoor dining without alcohol should require no discretionary approval providing the outlined standards are adhered to. • Outdoor dinging with alcohol sales should be subject to a C.U.P. to the Zoning Administrator. • All other issues identified should be omitted. 3.2.25 Outdoor Display and Sales • The regulations outlined reflect the City as a whole, the downtown is unique and should be allowed greater freedoms. The limitation on number of days per years, the size of the sales area and type of merchandise sold should be omitted. Provided adequate pedestrian passageways is available, all other identified issues should be omitted. 3.2.26 Parking • Simply state the parking stall sizes, standards and handicap requirements. • The Non-residential Uses Parking requirement chart should reflect a need for the same requirement in District 1, 2, and 3 the remaining Districts (with the exception of District 6 the Pier) do not allow non-residential uses. Therefore omit the line " All other Districts" • Restaurant parking requirements are the same as elsewhere in the City. This requirement should be reduced to 8 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. (20% reduction) in recognition of the shared parking concept. In addition the restaurant busy time is generally different from office and retail uses. • Restaurants with 12 seats or less should be required the same parking as retail uses 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. • The outdoor dining parking requirements should be added to the chart. • Hotel/Motel parking requirements should be the same in all Districts, 1.1 spaces/room plus the added requirements identified. • Bed and Breakfast parking requirements should be the same in all Districts, 1 space/room plus 1 guest and manager space_ • Cultural Facilities parking requirements should be the same as retail due primarily to the different time of day demand. These uses should benefit from a shared parking approach. • Assembly Uses should be omitted. If a specific project is proposing a unique activity, a special parking study should be conducted. • The Planning Commission should only have the discretionary ability to conditionally require additional parking upon review of an independent parking analysis for the proposal. • Residential uses parking should be expanded to allow tandem parking, front to back and stacked with a mechanical hoist system. • In residential uses, properly designed carports should be considered "enclosed". • Alley access may require a 5' setback in order to assure a 25'turning radius. • The additional parking requirement for single family units greater than 3 bedrooms simply needs to say "the additional required parking must be located on-site". All additional wording should be omitted. • Multi-family residential should be the same in all Districts, with the proposed changes : o 2 or more bedrooms should require 2 spaces' omit the 3 or more provisions. o Guest parking throughout the downtown should be .25 parking spaces per unit, based on the availability of on street and off street public parking. • Bicycle parking should not be required for commercial development but should be allowed as an alternative. Bicycle parking should be provided in public areas, on street, in plazas or within the parking structures. • Bicycle parking for residential projects should only be required for multi- family developments and the same in all Districts, 1 space per 4 units. 3.2.26.5 Coastal Zone Design Standard • Amend chapter 231 of the Zoning Code to remove this provision. The previously outlined parking standards should be consistent in or out of the Coastal Zone. 3.2.26.6 Tandem Parking • Tandem parking in commercial development is permitted subject to review of a parking management plan and not arbitrarily limited to 40% of the spaces. Tandem parking in residential projects should be permitted provided the tandem parking spaces are assigned to individual units. 3-2.26.8 Other Parking Considerations • This provision should be limited to the following- o Require a Parking Management Plan for review of a valet parking proposal, or projects greater than 50,000 sq. ft. o All other provisions should be omitted. 3.2.26.9 Parking Structures • The design concerns for a parking structure should be the same as any building in the downtown. The setback and landscape provisions should be established with the individual streetscape concept and should not be treated differently. The design provisions outlined are more appropriate for conventional parking structures found elsewhere in the City, they propose unnecessary regulations. Omit all design issues identified. Any proposed parking structure in the future will likely be a public facility and therefore subject to greater City review. Any private parking facilities proposed will be in conjunction with a development project which will control the overall design. 3.2.26.10 District 1 Special Standards • Commercial parking within District 1 should be allowed to use any public parking available_ On-site parking should be permitted but not required. ® Future projects may only be permittable if there is sufficient parking available (a combination of public and private). 3.2.28 Utilities 3.2.29 Water Quality 3.2.30 Methane Mitigation 3.2.31 Fire Prevention • All of the above provisions are unrelated to Zoning and should be omitted. Unless all items related to obtaining a building permit are identified, why list a select few? 3.3 District Provisions 3.3.1.1 Purpose (District 1) • This District is established as the Downtown core so the purpose should not be re-established. The purpose should be to expand the commercial core area beyond Main Street and along PCH. • Large amounts of ground level open space are encouraged at the north end of Main Street in the District not the District as a whole. • How will "large amounts" of ground level open space: further promote a pedestrian environment and provide additional view opportunities? 3.3.1.3 Permitted uses • New construction alone should not require the need for a Conditional Use Permit, only specific types of development should require discretionary approval. • The Permitted use charts should be adjusted (see attached recommendations). 3.3.1.5 Minimum Parcel Size • Ok 3.3.1.6 Maximum Site Coverage • Ok 3.3.1.7 Maximum Density • Ok, but not achievable without major consolidation of parcels. 3.3.1.8 Building Height • Ok, but need to add language to allow for rooftop mechanical screening, elevator or rooftop access housings and roofline variation. Without some flexibility, all roofs will be flat and a boring skyline will result. 3.3.1.9 Upper Story Setback • Setting back the 4th and 5th floor can be accomplished architecturally without the minimum average 10' setback requirement. 3.3.1.10 Front yard Setback • All setbacks should be established to implement the various desired _ streetscapes. • Main Street shall have a 0'-5' (max) setback. If additional dedication is required for Main Street to implement the streetscape concept than require dedication at time of development. • A reduction of the front setback requirement (15' - 10' avg.) for residential only parcels will result in new developments inconsistent with relatively recent developments. • The need for additional right-of-way dedication of 5 feet along PCH from 1 St to 6th Street for expanded sidewalks seems a bit late. New projects currently front PCH from 6th to 2"d Street on the inland side. Additional sidewalk area can be achieved by adopting a streetscape plan for PCH and requiring that new or expanded improvements provide an adequate setback. The discussion of dedication does not belong in a setback requirement. The dedication is also unclear as to which side of PCH needs the right-of-way. Will the additional right-of-way be used for widening PCH? • No minimum setback for parking lots unless the proposed streetscapes design requires a specific dimension. 3.3.1.11 Side Yard Setback • Same comment the exterior side setbacks should be determined by the streetscape design of the adjacent street. • Residential only projects should only require a 5 foot, interior side setback (no aggregate calculation), with an exception for parcels less than 50 feet in width where the setback can be 3 feet. • Same comment for parking lot setbacks as before, the proposed streetscape design should determine the setback. 3.3.1.12 Corner Setback • Ok, for the main building, however, allowances should be permitted for architectural projections and outdoor activities, subject to vehicle visibility concerns. 3.3.1.13 Rear Setback • Ok 3.3.1.14 Public Open Space • Only projects over a minimum size of 20,000 sq, ft, (commercial) should require a public open space provision. • The discussion of residential open space should be omitted, it is addressed in section 3.2.15. • Projects with less than 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial activity in the ground level shall pay an in-lieu fee for public open space. • All the remaining issues in this section #4 through #11 should be omitted. 3.3.1�15 Storefront • This entire section should be a Design Guideline not a regulation. Evan as a design guideline it encourages uniformity, which will prohibit an eclectic and creative approach to design development. 3.3.1.16 Public Art • Public Art should be included in the streetscape plans with all projects contributing through an in-lieu fee. Encouraging individual solutions may be counter productive to an overall downtown design theme. • The three-step approval process, Design Review Board, Planning Director and Cultural Services staff seem awkward. Development of an overall public improvements Master Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council, will allow for a better implementation process. 3.3.1.17 Paseos • Paseos can provide a good means of connecting activities to non- vehicular traffic. However, they need to serve a connecting purpose, simply requiring one every 250 feet may not be practical. • All paseo design issues should be part of the Design Guidelines and omitted from the regulations 3.3.1.18 Loading and Service Areas • Projects of various sizes may require dedicated loading areas. The project Entitlement review should determine the appropriate number and locations, the identified amount seems arbitrary. 3.3.1.19 Refuse Enclosures • Ok 3.3.1.20 Restaurant Alcohol Permit • This entire sections should be omitted it goes way beyond Zoning and is counter productive to the intensions of the Plan. It proposes new standards and procedures which are only reflective of the problems of the past, they are not intended to encourage new economic development. This item needs a greater amount of discussion outside of the Specific Plan and the new procedures outlined would require a change to the municipal code. 3.3.1.21 Entertainment Permit • Same comment as above this entire discussion should be omitted from the Specific Plan. The detailed issues should be addressed on a project- by-project basis. With the detail regulations outlines there should not be the need for any discretionary review. The way the proposed regulations are drafted it will not encourage new economic development. 3.3.1.22 Cultural Arts Overlay • Good concept • The proposal to close 6th Street and realign to intersect Main Street at Acacia Avenue should be addressed as part of the circulation plan. Downtown Circulation is better served with 6th Street in its current alignment. If the goal is simply to assemble a larger parcel for the cultural complex, than removal of 6th Street for subterranean parking and reconstruction of 6th Street over the top with a smaller street section, will accomplish the same thing. • The detailed development standards may only serve to limit the sites potential. Any development of the site will most likely be a public project, therefore the concerns anticipated with the suggested design standards could be accomplished with statements of intent and not potentially limiting dimensions and standards. A rewrite of this section is suggested or this will become the focal point for the entire discussion of the amended Specific Plan through the public hearing process. 3.3.1.1 Purpose (District 2) • The purpose is also to implement the entitled commercial portions of the Pacific City Master Plan. • An image of the adopted plan should be inserted in the graphics. • Any alteration to the Plan will require an amendment to the approved Entitlement and should be consistent with that approval, and the adopted Development Agreement. 3.3.2.4 Development Standards • All development standards should be omitted. Future development of the site should be consistent with the approved plan, any proposed alterations should be reviewed for compatibility on a form planning basis consistent with the standards reflected in the adopted plan. 3.3.2.15 Fractional Ownership Hotel • This issue should be omitted from the Specific Plan, the pertinent provisions have been addressed in the project Development Agreement. • The use is simply a hotel for zoning purposes. How the hotel is financed or how the ownership is structured is not a zoning function. 3.3.3.1 Purpose (District 3) • The purpose is to implement the entitled commercial portion of the Waterfront Master Plan. • An image of the adopted plan should be inserted in the graphics. • Any alteration to the plan will require an amendment to the approved Entitlement and should be consistent with that approval and the adopted Development Agreement. 3.3.3.3 Development Standard • All development standards should be redrafted to reflect the standards adopted with the existing project Entitlement. Future development scale or appropriateness should be determined on the proposals compatibility with the built surroundings. 3.3.3.15 Condominium Hotel • Omit entire section • All the appropriate concerns have been addressed in the existing Development Agreement. 3.3.4.1 Purpose (District 4) • Consider expanding the District to include both sides of 2"d Street and 1" Street between Walnut and Orange; and the inland side of Lake Street, between Orange and Acacia; which has experienced a great deal of new residential development over the past few years. The established pattern of exclusively residential development should be encouraged to continue. 1 st, 2"d, and Lake Streets are only adjacent to the downtown and it is not appropriate for the same level of development intensity to be permitted in these areas. 3.3.4.4 Development Standards • Maximum Building Height is not identified (in the chart) however a continuation of the density calculation is. • Upper story setback should not be mandated at a 10-foot average_ The setback can be achieved with a number of techniques at various dimensions. A greater amount of flexibility should be encouraged to avoid a continuation of the same architectural solution. • Exterior side setbacks should be reduced to a maximum of 10 feet; omit the complicated calculation. 3.3.4.15 Street Frontage • The statement that all new single-family homes are required to have a front porch should be omitted. The inclusion of a front porch could be encouraged in the Design Guidelines. • The second issue addressing alley access to garages does not belong in this section and should be omitted. The policy is stated elsewhere. 3.3.5.1 Purpose (District 5) • To implement the adopted plans the graphics should be adjusted to include the approved Entitlement plans for both the Waterfront project and Pack City. 3.3.5.3 Permitted uses ® The public transportation center should be omitted. The opportunity for _ including a transportation center in the Pacific City project has passed. A Transportation Center is now more appropriate in District 1 or 7. 3.3.5.4 Development Standards • The development standards need to reflect the two entitled projects and the adopted Development Agreements. Future modification to these approved plans need to be anticipated. The Waterfront project will need to address remodeling, maintenance and potential expansion, with individual additions. The Pacific City project may need to change the project scope entirely. In the later case why limit the density to 30du/ac when the downtown core is proposing 60du/ac. 3.3.5.14 Corridor Dedication • This issue was addressed with the Development Agreement and can be omitted from the Plan 3.3.5.15 Conservation Overlay • All outlined regulations can be omitted, these provisions are part of the Development Agreement. 3.3.6.1 Purpose (District 6) • The approved building layouts should be added to the graphics. 3.3.7.1 Purpose (District 7) • To preserve, protect and enhance the beach area. 3.3.7.3 Permitted use • This is the most logical location for a future transportation center; is the wording Public transit facilities the same? 3.3.7.9 Maximum Building Height • The maximum building height should be consistent with District 6, which allows 25 feet and 2 stories. Chapter 4 - Design Guideline • The Design Guidelines section should only be an appendix to the Plan. The intent is for this chapter to serve as suggestions, recommendations and guidelines; however by including them in the Plan_ the guidelines become interpreted as mandatory regulations. • This chapter reads like a lecture on design with only a hand full of local examples. Many of the issues are vague and presented in an awkward fashion. ' - A • The concept of sustainable development, while a worthy objective, should _ be part of a much larger City wide discussion and not presented in a piece meal fashion within a section intended to address aesthetics. • Many of the images are in conflict with text in the regulations section. In addition, various items discussed are not pertinent to downtown Huntington Beach. • The Design Guidelines ad hoc committee should be reassembled to review the recommended amendments to the Guidelines and report back to City Council. Chapter 5 - Circulation and Parking Proposed Improvements include: • "wider sidewalks with ADA paths of travel from street to building entrance." Which sidewalks? If buildings are zero front setback why ADA path of travel? • "realignment of selected roadways" Which ones and how wide? • "improvements to the bicycle and transit networks" Describe the existing networks and how they will be improved. • "increasing the parking supply with creative and traditional approaches" Describe the new approaches. • "managing parking demand" What does this mean? • "The improvements should make it easier for residents, employees and visitors to bicycle, walk, and utilize transit..." Is the above statement a goal and how will it be implemented. 5.3 Trip Generation • Appendix D (Traffic Study)was not included and the summary in the Plan is weak_ • What are the traffic impacts generated by the existing developments? • Will the existing network of streets need to be widened, will on-street parking be eliminated for bike paths or will additional right-of-way dedication be required? • How were the 12,800 new daily vehicle trips determined, what are the mix and amounts of new uses anticipated and over what period of time? 5.3.1 Year 2020 • What is the projected extent of development? 5.3.2 Year 2030 • What is the projected extent of development? Two of the improvements listed will be implemented by 2010 (Pacific View Avenue and 5"' Street reopening). Lake Street increasing to four lanes will likely not occur, what are the impacts assuming no change to Lake Street? 5.3.3 Year 2030 • The only negative traffic impact will be at the intersection of Goldenwest and PCH. Seems unrelated to the proposed additional downtown development. In addition, the mitigation measure of an additional right turn lane seem extreme, however the current R.O.W. exists so why make the statement, when the need warrants to just restripe the street. 5.4 Street Network Improvements • The existing circulation system needs to be analyzed with 4-lane PCH, 2-lane Lake Street and an open Main Street as opposed to the Master Plan designations of wider streets. • PCH is only 6 lanes through a portion of the downtown area, expansion of the roadway and elimination of on-street parking will create a very negative physical barrier between the inland side and ocean side. • Main Street should remain open to through traffic with limited on street parking; closing for special events should be encouraged. • First Street and Lake Street should remain 2 lanes with on-street parking. Any additional widening will simply allow traffic to travel faster through a residential area. 5.4.1 6tt' Street • The proposed realignment of 6tn Street has little to do with circulation and is only proposed to create a larger lot for the Cultural Arts concept. The anticipated vehicular conflicts at Acacia/Main/6tt' are due to the proposed reopening 6tt' Street to through traffic, closing Acacia between 6t" and 71h will serve little purpose. • 6tn Street should remain 2 lanes and loop the downtown to connect with Main Street in its current configuration. On-street parking should be encouraged to help limit traffic speed. 5.4.2 Walnut Avenue • The proposed realignment of Walnut Avenue between 2"d and 1st needs to be shown with design details. • Continuation of Walnut Avenue at Pacific View Drive is very important and a continuation of the right-of-way design concept adopted for Pacific City should be encouraged. • Orange Avenue needs to be redesigned between 1st Street and 6t"Street. On-street parking should be limited to allow for left and right turn pockets along with public transportation turnouts. • PCH has three signalized intersections with the downtown core (1st, Main Utt')which direct vehicular traffic into and around the downtown area_ Therefore a circulation network around the downtown core needs to be reinforced. These established access opportunities need to lead conveniently to the various parking opportunities. 5. .3 Pedestrian Phase Signal ® A good concept that should be expanded 5.6 Bicycle Improvements ® The class II bikeway should be for continuation beyond Lake Street to Goldenwest Street. In addition, the class II bikeway should extend along 1st Street as a continuation of Lake Street. Huntington and 17th Streets should be designated as class 11 bikeways. Class III bikeway designations should be considered for 5th Street along with 3`d Street. 5.6.2 Bicycle Parking ® Bicycle parking should b e provided in the public parking facilities. Bicycle parking locations should be added to the various streetscape proposals, not the downtown sign program. • Providing bicycle parking in-lieu of vehicles parking should be considered as an incentive to encourage select types of development. 5.8 Transit Improvement ® "Improvements to the transit system shall be provided to increase pedestrian movement" What does that say? The downtown area needs a public transportation center. This can be accomplished in District 7 near the current bus layover area. 5.8.1 Trolley System • This is a good idea to supplant the regional bus system and may also facilitate remote beach parking facilities that are lightly used in non-peak hours and seasons. 5.9 Parking Conditions • Appendix E has not been provided for review, therefore`the adequacy of the existing parking system is not reviewable. 5.10 Parking Improvements • A far greater review of the necessary parking facilities required to facilitate new downtown development needs to be offered. The proposed elimination of on-street parking to facilitate greater pedestrian and bicycle circulation is very short sited. Better management of the existing parking resources are desperately needed. New public parking opportunities need to be identified, the sole solution for additional public parking in conjunction with the development of a cultural center does not adequately address the issue. Other creative solutions must be explored in order for the downtown area to implement the types of development intensities recommended in the Plan. 5.10.1 Valet Parking • The report was not available for review. 5.10.2 Commercial Parking • Need to identify the potential sites, including District 6&7. 5.10.3 Shuttle Service • Good idea, implement a trial program for Tuesday nights. 5.10.4 Public/Private Partnership • Good idea 5.10.5 Employees Parking • Good idea 5.10.6 Temporary Parking Facilities • This section should be retitled to the above. Temporary facilities could be proposed if the City would develop temporary parking lot standards that reduce the overall construction and permit costs. The map in Figure 5.7 is very misleading. 5.10.7 Automated Parking Structures • The concept should be further explored but may have limited application downtown. The site next to the Art Center is not conveniently located to an area of need and if the Cultural Center is achieved sufficient parking should be available within that complex, across the street. 5.10.8 Beach Parking Structures • Signage is not the solution to the City's downtown parking problem. Better circulation needs to be proposed. The current signage system is not effective. 5.10.10 Parking Guideline Systems • Good idea Chapter 6 - Streetscapes • The intent is good • The design concept is valid, however the main goal should not primarily focus on creating a pedestrian friendly environment. 6.3 Improvements ® The downtown area is not very large therefore, each segment of all streets should be shown in more precise detail in both a plan and cross section format. 6.3.1 Main.Street ® The intersection of Main and PCH is currently three lanes and should be depicted. • On-street parking should be allowed in select locations. ® The travel way width of 28 feet may be too narrow to encourage bicycle travel. Previously bikeways were proposed for street other than Main Street. • Main Street in the first block currently displays plaques for the annual inductees into the Surfing Walk of Fame and handprints for the Surfing Walk of Fame. These efforts should be recognized and a variation of the existing sidewalk theme should be prepared for future expansion. The proposed logo in the street at Main and Walnut should be the Surfing Walk of Fame logo, the concept was previously presented to Council. • Overall, the design concept is fine, however more complete details need to be identified. The various products proposed should simply be received as recommendations, the variety available is far greater that the section few shown. 6.5 Street Trees ® The design approach seems fine, each street segment should establish a unique character. 6.6 Public Signs • The current abundance of public signage detracts from the overall appearance of the downtown. An overall public signage set of regulations is encouraged. Chapter 7 - Public Facilities • The information presented should be summarized and moved to the front of the document • A greater detailed discussion for each item should be part of the Environmental Review. Only mitigation measure that result from the Environmental review should become regulator measures or standards in the Specific Plan Chapter 8 - Implementations 8.3 Economic Conditions • The issues are weakly presented and obvious. The good and bad are mixed together with no recommendations. 8.4 Summary of Demand • This discussion should be part of the Plan concept which is weakly outlined in Chapter One 8.6 Action Plan ® This section is an essential element of the Plan. The chart outlines both broad action concepts and small detailed steps. Greater discussion and prioritization needs to occur at the City Council level. However, as a first step, the information presented should begin the process. 8.7 Potential Funding • While this information is interesting it is unrelated to a zoning document; although it does logically follow a discussion on implementation. The missing discussion is on the potential competition for the limited source and funds; along all City's the existing commitments for the same funding. J.RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare lane#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com MAIN STREET LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS Dear Townsquare Condo Owner, The City apparently has met our requests for underground parking and no net loss of green space in its future development of the Main Street Library site as a new cultural center. Upon further review of their plans, however,1 am concerned that the new building will be too large and too tall. For these reasons,I have begun work on a petition to keep the library site as it is now. With this note, I have included one page of this petition. My goal is to obtain over 1,000 signatures,with nearly 100 gathered in the first several days of work. Please sign this petition page and mail it back to me by the middle of January. If you could have any other Huntington Beach registered voters sign it as well,I would greatly appreciate it. As you can see from the four pages of the City's Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 that 1 have provided you,the City plans to build a 30 000-square-foot performing arts or cultural center on the library site. This space is comprised of 20,000 square feet of net new space and the roughly 10,000 square feet of the existing library building,which might be demolished. 30,000 square feet is about the size of a football field,for example,300 feet by 100 feet. Furthermore,the building could be as tall as 45 feet,or four stories,a true monolith replacing the present pastoral library setting in the middle of established and high-end residential areas. Under this plan,I understand that the City might discontinue the library use within 10 years. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that 1 sent to the City Council for their study session on the downtown plan on December 15i'. 1 also ant putting together an email list to try and alert residents of the public hearings on the library site and downtown plan,for possible letter writing or email campaigns on specific issues,and about other important news. If you want me to include you on this list,please send me an email. if you know of anyone else who wants to be on such a list,have them email me as well. This list could serve as one starting point for an association of residents interested in improving our downtown. Full information on the City's downtown plans is available on the City's website,www.surfcity- hb.org,under Economic Development,including the draft Environmental Report,(EIR),for which written public comments must be received before 5:00 PM on Friday,January 23,2009. 1 encourage you to send a written comment on this draft EIR stating your opposition to the development plans for the library site. Send comments via e-mail to Kellee Fritzal,Deputy Director of Economic Development,kfritzalna.surfcity-hb.org,or Jason Machado,Development Specialist,Jason.Machado(r�.surfcity-ltb.or;,or via mail to:City of Huntington Beach,Economic Development Department,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92649,Attn:Jason Machado. Concerning the library site's development,the current schedule calls for public hearings before the City's Planning Commission in Spring 2009,public comments on a final Environmental Impact Report in Spring 2009, public hearings before the City Council in Summer 2009,and submission of the City's plans to the California Coastal Commission in Summer 2009. If you have any questions,please give me a call_ Thank you for your consideration of this important challenge to the quality of residential life surrounding downtown Huntington Beach. I - I Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We,the undersigned,are registered voters,residing in Huntington Beach,California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-rive(45) feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand-(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach.CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address I[untington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Punt Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address I(untington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address I(untington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Strect Address I tuntington Beach,CA Zip Code Datc • t ' W :�'i:, ,.�. s :"' , ec soft PI ' ll F h: 1, - is.•XyM�..�, k :'[{;w.�,.•'•:s• .t.tf Vie, 1 '•'? i .1Jr 1' , .. 'I. n -:,fir rrt' � :.,.' '7,' .,rY'•• ' fit' .'t'`i'•!y'.";'�~f• i. '8 .try.1 ••�'' 'i i.r.:f,., r;?l�,,t.. r:�.:: ���('r'',•t'' 'IT t . i'j:; I�...,�r' (?.'rU4.. .•iYi..'.hr :'�7'..' rM .,'1. ..Lj/♦ •�r y:�µ+t..� . {d(.� L"L':;:tE y..:,.' •��•,,'.�,,,t., ";.{,a7. :�l, ''�?`"r. „ .. ,fit'.. .. .. ��i'�i�.•',r':'•' L. • :Ri,•:i'.• •^' :'try;'' � ' Huntington Beach,Downtown•Specifc PIa�=lNo6k hop 4 ; p a ■ District Key - No FAR Building Height . . 11�inirr�urn �u�i➢dint :�:h�i �ht � ;°'='•���• �®=.� ;.����1.50. � - - �Iti,'^y'j:`:i;i;•iS '�` '� '' :i':^'. i;l{yi;;?., �.i�'L r., � . . ' ..,®:. d:uced`: setbacks <_.50 street fronta a '.35' ; `.<3 .. :: ,a .. �� - ... < , � .r�aaxarriuries m:.for•.. cornrnercial/mix se ed-u > 50 street frontage 45 & 4 ,t y & Full block stories ' 10; : ninsm.urn :for residential , rp...�:r'jr Full .block ,: ,,.,.. ERR1 Residential only 3 & 3 ; �• :a:'d,' , �,.:, :: ;.-.,'` ac stories to r:�fr ot t' pmet n r s a d ds . 'a. ,7., •?'tom• 'st s:•.� IIU .yam i�. .e,. :9 U9�6 gn Hu n tan'Beach Downtown?.,,,," ., �.u, gr Specific Plan Workshy 4 `�-.,:• _ a ' a +e• ° ■ Maximum Net Ne Development Potential • Expected new. developrnent �n eddit o :exsstss and = curren y..approved develo anent Developed through 'analysis ., '213.467 sq.ft. ®f typ`ca` ;aeuepr�.ent ; Restaurant 92,332 sq.ft. p;rototypes :c. , Dg ash .::..,. t vSy;r:.l'�•.•^'� V 2 / V S V/'�.fta .. 0 ..R•��. �i.� r'tt,.... -S a•t'. O t'�:'•si:; ,•,•L ti:*{t`.,1"y 'i�•o 9.Y.ce*. q tatl rtraran:tt � _ '� ,F::: , ,t• 000 20, sq.ft. a 'd `resale _ sti lr..r,`'YS^�'„�..1`; 'e .!.� ?'•„}sva:: f:'11��tJ�j ,,:,r,y1.�yr. 'f'• `y'e}fitr� •,h�^�.'t,'f}�,,.• , f��'_ ... _ < �:.: . Resider;�tial_. - 648 units :,':Celcula�ejd • Jip��:"j1�; '{ :�t^i"^•C.r;a. . ,..L,,:f�',t,� . .,. i.�. .:.`sai . ...-. . • -�,.... _ . 'r. . ... .. _-• ,. �.:::': Hotel 235 rooms Market e 3 ; . <.` f „ !y•i. a.;f, t .ifi`:I.i. t• .. :.;i„e5S}t�.Stily,i�� 9�.>tt'S;:i,,:. �f.7�.ry^.�;�.�r {.i.�"Y1•t,i�•' ,�'.7.:�' �r.• ., .a 'i• ;:i.�!Y, yq, pegs •:L.Nh.:fr SI eSVllOnt L..'. Ph psi : ,. • ., :::rfz .r.: .�y'a,;:.k�.1.,�;. .�r' 4.�:!!%. ..,Sjj:::P'.f�:"A:`�'� .!'O'•` ��#.'�'�� • pit. .S.S.C• �,, . IA, rTMde§gng=. IN Huntin ton Leach Downtown'• S ecfic PI an"'W s 4 ^::,` a'?:,', r; . ;. p orlc hop ;;r,•/,. :-L' {.,. v.ad�WW- i cultural ' ' A�', its Overlay F treet is The existing library butid� ACBCI_a A @ ehroogh r with . t - !� toect at a ttargjle d on AverrYe' large blank Murals waft will mt4� enhance the$4C artsceMertanbe $Ili 07 ,', tad �� .. i�A.• s: x To fir.. promote"-coed Ilcada Av ue `.: \ l e mutt of.the cultural Ott • 4X PrWde a focus;.•�:o n 'at t ,:. F; :p. he north v.nd .O.f:.Main: Sglp1W//.r� ''• �.•,' _ 'X �,','K�."�''iG(r L:.::' :•fi.,tlet �,�'t':!,a4�t, :C.�„n (p �I,. '•r• 1 t 'I'V M�t :T •.4' .�'x Y( ..,,' yA l`n..-t.yp '•.•..' rr.i..., i rt :end �:,�.. . , r:���� •�l{: �•.. a n♦OIlILl1r==' '? ya�!Mt�I:':•p®a Vla®n••yO :1 . 1,;a•-t'`�St`,lO�I ..'� '•r r•`''!• :1 .•y... , {/��ygaP/�x+pgl�]1ap+ T,•l.r. ,.4^'.. .3.•7...7•Y.��:,a.,;''• :. i� � ti r.V!':M MI.iV �4'C. � .. ,}w:�, .ia t,�'et:• .F��� Mar: ••, �t•i�^ rt. ',.. -. •,L; ,?; ne p +;,Q( _ X";.; .. ct Y'6.�.+ x.- '�' ^;.i:: Thb portdor,o!6th Street parktngructure sS•of'' �' pace<' 'a"fir 11 ;tiuitz''' a [ould increase <ir`s 'r t:,l.�.'• `�v Y••!' ` Vulmincito a Enhanced sidewalks available paHdq g u�:d ��°:. area Pavintt p. �a6'. ,I h '.' Z.—IN The portion o1 existing r ::•,.r'. .y. :i,kN.;:i: ,.: a+> UTen 6th Street between < i i: •,a r_ p W�TMari b!a'uu the space .r - :'S;4i z•'.".n.`'^ '�.ui..,t•,;> �•—.�—�-- Mahn Street and take .. 'a "• '' 1'- d'•'S?! i� S~would remain 4^ �• open to vehkk tralric Huntington Be'�ch bo%Wowm Specific Plan Vi/o do <:.;� ?' _� >.: ,.,, :,»;,. � , J.RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com HAND DELIVERED December 15,2008 Mayor Keith Bohr City of Huntington Beach Council Member Joe Carchio City Hall Council Member Gil Coerper Fourth Floor Council Member Devin Dwyer 2000 Main Street Council Member Cathy Green Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We have enclosed a copy of a petition from seventy-seven(77)registered voters who reside in Huntington Beach. If you need to examine the original of our petition,please let us know. After such an enthusiastic response in the first few days,we expect that well over one thousand(1,000)Huntington Beach registered voters will sign this petition by the City Council's public hearings on the Downtown Specific Plan Update in the summer of 2009. The petition's substance reads as follows: 6' "We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. "For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts." After knocking on the doors of the over one hundred ten(I 16)homes abutting the library this last weekend,I know that our group's consensus is that we will do absolutely whatever is necessary to stop any large new project at the library site. We simply are not going to let a large new building,such as the proposed performing arts or cultural center,get built on the library parcel with its park-like grounds. To avoid a protracted battle,we urge you to endorse the recommendations of your many constituents who have signed this petition,and the countless more who will. Thank you for your support. Sincerely yours, J. Richardson Gray cc: All City of Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners All Residential Abutters of the Main Street Library d • J. RICHARDSON GRAY 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson-gray@yahoo.com HAND DELIVERED December 15,2008 Mayor Keith Bohr City of Huntington Beach Council Member Joe Carchio City Hall Council Member Gil Coerper Fourth Floor Council Member Devin Dwyer 2000 Main Street Council Member Cathy Green Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We have enclosed a copy of a petition from seventy-seven (77) registered voters who reside in Huntington Beach. If you need to examine the original of our petition, please let us know_ After such an enthusiastic response in the first few days, we expect that well over one thousand(1,000)Huntington Beach registered voters will sign this petition by the City Council's public hearings on the Downtown Specific Plan Update in the summer of 2009. The petition's substance reads as follows: "We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. "For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts." After knocking on the doors of the over one hundred ten(110)homes abutting the library this last weekend,I know that our group's consensus is that we will do absolutely whatever is necessary to stop any large new project at the library site. We simply are not going to let a large new building, such as the proposed performing arts or cultural center,get built on the library parcel with its park-like grounds. To avoid a protracted battle,we urge you to endorse the recommendations of your many constituents who have signed this petition,and the countless more who will. Thank you for your support. SiIM J. Gray '/ cc: 11 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners All Residential Abutters of the Main Street Library ' r T` Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City - Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We,the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these sign scant adverse impacts. f/ / Signature Print Name Lm5wwomp" I/Sy" I Q Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signatu Print Nre it it d�, Print Street Address H gto Beach CA Zip Code a Signature Print Name l K Taws -4t-a ulo /� d os Priinntt,Strtreet Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Coe Date Sign a Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date � &w-i- (00 IQ Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing,in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the tong term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize ese significant adverse impacts. ah�,� Signature I Pent Name Print d Hunti n Beach,CA Zip/Code/ '^,Date Signvil W)O ` j �i�( '�'Y rnttrceet dress Huntingt�CA Tap Code Date re Print Nam /-z'j(0 r Pk(11 — / Ilveogy Print S Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date V In Signature Print Name 194 aW Print Street A Huntington Beach,CA ro/d l Date tgnature Print Name ` 'TOWrA ev'o1 Prints t Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date n si&aturc Print Name q2 ✓ y Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA ip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to mini 7 e these significant adverse impacts. r `UAQIJ Su t t/cc 1 Signathre Print Name '/-Z-7 6 s r 1 �1'4 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date ?/ V�C-fDr a Sr l fie►-;a Signature Print Name 5/ 7 �f'_e� rL H , C� 2c� 12 (3 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Sign a Print Name 12 /_7 MAAI ST 26L!"a � �- �� (? Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name to , SK 13 , C14 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature n—ffNam Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date t Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing Istabps residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to mmimi th i ificant adverse impacts. signatur ; Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date0 Sign re Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date c-- Signature Print Name 7D w�S'�r�� ''Lc' Cry_ #��� 4!� ZE -'Y— / /3�G Print Street Address Huntington,Beach,CA Zip Code Date S gnature Print Name 1 f0p i-s C A-tc LWE G�,�� q��7 QJog Print tree A Huntington Beach,CA Zib Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date )L ) s Q � Signature Print Name fit; ia►� t l' �-� % — Print Street Address 'i" Huntington Beach;CA Ziny�e�' �dr c`' 3 3 Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City - - Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific flan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue .end maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000) square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. Signature Print Name C 6_2 G,q ZVVIV --04 Print S Addre Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date lt.41k�e E6CU Si1nature (, Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date S re Print Name T�ns�umll La del Print Strtct Address L_ Ujuntingfon Beach,CA Zip Code Date j Sign Pri N e t WM Pri t Street Address Huntington each,CA Zip Code Date&t4" lkur� A F Signature Print Name — T L0_ 1 6 V n q o'(( V�g Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date 6� VV k- Signature —� Print Name Print Street Address ? c� Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Dale Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission,and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to Ale significant adverse impacts. f Aj&,� V b- VdA �',�'' � me 1 Print NIvne Print S Address Huntington Beach,CA bate Si Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA/Zip Code Date atu Print Name Print Street Address —' Huntingfun Beach,CA Zip Date re Print Name Print Sj&cIJAddrc6 Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code (Date signatiOr ` ri Name Pf�nt Sirect Address Hunijfi�n Beach,CA Zip Code Dad Lay �ffilmm 2 Signature Print Name LbA-e OA-CCU Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip`_'ode_.>,.. Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City - - Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach,California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these sig ; cant adver impacts- f Lc Sign a Print Name 7 1 Z Z2 oN�z� V4Zip ' </'0Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA ode Date _ signature 10Print Name Print treet Add Huntington Beachh,C� a Date DT11m )AAJ PA M0 N -gnaUue rint Name V55 141 \ Zq q 16 A - Print Street Address Huntinggton Beach,CA Zip to"de Date a) i ycM U`2 v Si Print game At A'g Print S Address, Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date )�WK� "hy_lia7y . Print Name gtPC �{ �2 tom: 1 t�'� g2-c Ci b Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Sign re Print Name Print Street Address Hu4tinglon Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned,are registered voters,residing in Huntington Beach,California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. oil A - r-V-jbrj.4�bj Print Name Print treet ddress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date signature 11 Print Name (? C f �� ( Q Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Date signature j(j; Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date SignaturePrint Name lljt4z -r �i1 Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date L fw6 S Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name MM ) f Prin Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members.of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes,and configurations_ For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts_ �/,�� .��e''C��`-cam' f�-L/j� T' G' /�/v�.✓i�: < Signature Print Name Print Street Ydress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date ignature Pnnt Name �— Print Street Ad res Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Je ffr-� E�cri y Stgna re Print Name ' 59 Z. 13 ; C A , 9-z-&q7 (� 4*hi t Address Huntington Beach,CA ZZ"i Code Date Print Name A 10 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date -Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip ode Date 1<11of Signature JFJ Print Name 53 d' �� � � gJc y " fL a,K� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zie Code Date _. Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council, Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned,are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach,California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights, sizes, and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the;immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to mm-imaze these significant adverse impacts. gnature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington$each,CAfZip Code Date "a Ver Signature Print Name ?'8�5 6 /V�a•� �s� �l� �1`¢ /2-ho awe Street Address XTI on Beach,CA Zip Code Date co� n� Vt'sJ ` ,n G� Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beady,CA Zip Code Date Kelly �`IY1'eS signatuW Print Nance (12_ C) 121101 Jg -Print S Ad Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date C. gn re Print Namc e L2.r0-� Print 7SUrdddress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date S� Z CI n n e, Al l �t Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We,the undersigned,are registered voters,residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes,and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4)stories,and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. �6 ,.a , I-" SiKnau,Fc Pnnt Name -Vr- Print Street Address Hu9titketon Beach,CA Zip Code Date �aC Signature Print Name 6Asa Sit Vent ee,6 cite 9 a Z V 7 Print Street Adoress Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date ,,I�_ A14- /f/,— /Z_ Aig.36= Print Name 20 3 �' ,✓ t6 /Z_8 �© Print Street Ad untington Be ,CA Zip Code Date hCi Si 11-Y/e 7- op Signature Print Name Print Street Add Huntington Beach CA Zip Code Date IL C Signaturc Print am 1712 4,5;02 Print S Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code l Sign,4&c' Print Name Al Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA p"t' >' ^�P Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission,Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission: We,the undersigned,are registered voters, residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present sizes and configurations. For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts center with a permissible height of up to forty-five (45)feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts. rgaature Print Name Print Stnxt Address Huthiniton Beach,CA Zip Code Date ►�^�� 7 y,2 Pt4 IC 6 A N 0111 signature Print Name I-Lot) P St7reet Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date ri signature Print Name fYt7 Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date G f Tom/✓ �•�i��/�i G// Si ature Print Name 4Si&at.r Huntington Beach CA Zip Code Date -L 13j ZL LLI&104�1101_ Print Name /Z 0� Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Signature Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Dear Members of the California Coastal Commission, Members of the Huntington Beach City Council,Members of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and Members of the Huntington Beach Zoning Commission.- We, the undersigned, are registered voters,residing in Huntington Beach, California. We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present sizes and configurations. For this Main Street Library site, we believe that the addition of a performing arts center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45)feet and four(4)stories, and as much as twenty thousand(20,000)square feet in net new development, would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these signi7Xveimp ts. Signat Print Name —'woo LfT Pridt Street Address / Huntington Beach,CA Zap Code Date Signature p Print Name Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date �(_Z� 'Cl v Jel:, ,re Signature Pnrint Name'I Print Street Address b Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date 6o r ram/' Signature Prini Name Vk Y;� �?7 Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date v /1 A91d i3 1�.rizo` /51-- ignadrrc J� Print Name Print Street Address / Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Si re Print Name s Print Street Address Huntington Beach,CA Zip Code Date Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:55 PM To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail),- Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini;John - Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth; De Coite, Kim; Fauland, Herb-, Fritzal, Kellee; Hess, Scott; Smalewitz, Stanley; Villasenor, Jennifer;Wine, Linda Subject: FW: Main Street Library -----Original Message----- RECEIV(=U Iv� OOO From: Nancy Roth [mailto:nancy2222@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 2:53 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: Nancy_Roth@ymail.com Subject: Main Street Library Hi, One of the reasons I bought in Huntington Beach was to have a "neighborhood feeling" and be able to walk to the library and downtown. I am a regular user of the Library and feel it would negatively impact the quality o :­_f^ in HB for the Main Street Library to be taken away from us. In this age of high library use and our President Obama promoting libraries and being green, I am surprised the City would even consider this. Image the carbon impact if all the users have to drive 3-5 miles to another City Library. There is so much empty property now. . .why would you consider building in this enviroment when you can't even get Pacific Ranch completed? I have also heard the-,. Hotel will not be building in HB. Please preserve our Library and protect Triangle Park. Nancy Roth 13+ year Resident of HD 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:20 AM To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb; Wine, Linda; De Coite, Kim; Broeren, Mary Beth; Villasenor, Jennifer; Smalewitz, Stanley; Fritzal, Kellee Subject: FW: Main Street Library -----Original Message----- RECEIVED JUN L� 201 From: Kim Kramer [mailto:kim@e-mailcom.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, _ 2009 9:16 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library Hi Linda, I would like to go "on record" as opposing the re-development of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. After studying the Specific Plan and speaking with several city officials on the City Council, Planning Commission and Marketing and visitors Bureau, I am convinced this proposed re-development will be detrimental to the quality of :'Life enjoyed by so many residents of Downtown Huntington Beach. In addition, I think that the Main Street Library and Park should be preserved as part of the history and culture of downtown. lould you please express my concerns to the Planning Commission at the June 23rd Thank you for your time. Kim Kramer Huntington Beach resident 1 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:17 AM To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb; Wine, Linda; De Coite, Kim; Broeren, Mary Beth; Villasenor, Jennifer; Smalewitz, Stanley; Fritzal, Kellee Subject: FW: Library preservation -----Original Message----- From: rbryantwe [mailto:rbryantwe@aol.com] RECEIV t� JUN Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3 :45 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Library preservation Bcc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Some concerned citizens have informed me and others that you are considering alterirg tb e Main Street Library site. Please know that 1 frequent the library and consider :.t property should not be altered by the addition of a cultural site. Let's enjoy t: . , .._}rren space we have there. With all of the empty offices caused by the economic dowritur ; it would seem you have ample property to select from and most probably at a cost far -less than constructing a new building. Please, please, us common sense to solve this problem and keep our green common areas. Respectfully Rob Bryant 200 PCH #348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-960-6091 1 Page 1 of 1 Villesenor, Jennifer From: Wine, Linda Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:06 PM To: Barbara Delgleize; Blair Farley; Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail); Fred Speaker; Janis Mantini; John Scandura ; Tom Livengood Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth; De Coite, Kim; Fauland, Herb; Fritzal, Kellee; Hess, Scott; Smalewitz, Stanley; Villasenor, Jennifer; Wine, Linda Subject: FW: Main Street Library and Triangle Park From: Suzanne Hart [mailto:hb.diva@yahoo.com] RECEIVED JUN 1.5 700 Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:30 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park as per the Downtown Specific Plan. The plan calls for a multi-story tourist attraction, with the goal being to attract literally thousands of people into an already well established residential neighborhood. After having spoken with Jennifer McGrath, it is my understanding that this park .i:-as deeded to the city by the Huntington Beach Oil Co. in the early 1900`s to be maintained in perpetu ty as an open space. The current library and park are a genuine asset with historic ramifications andr; s1th highly valued by this community. It seems that the Huntington Beach Oil Co. possessed a high degree of enlightened insight as to what we, the future residents of the area, would require for a desirable quality of life. I would hope that you, as our Planning Commission, would act on this matter in a equally enlightened manner. Many thanks for your consideration, Suzanne Hart. Huntington Beach resident 6/15/2009 Aline, Linda From: John Acampora Udacampora@gmail.com] D Sent: Friday,June 12, 2009 4:23 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Downtown Specific Plan-Cultural Arts Center JuN 12 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms Wine, PLANNING DEPT. As a resident of downtown Huntington Beach, I am writing to you in opposition of the Cultural Arts Center as proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Billed as the anchor of the Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Plan,this proposed complex will dramatically change the landscape,the historic presence, and lifestyle of our downtown neighborhood. The advocates for this development estimate that an additional 300,000 visitors will be attracted to the downtown area to visit the center and possibly stay an additional night in one of the local hotels(generating TOT). Although I believe the number is very optimist, and probably inflated to provide an economic justification for the project-that's still nearly 1,000 additional people every day congesting the streets and impacting the adjacent neighborhoods. Frankly in today's economic atmosphere, and with the debacle at Pacific City, I am amazed that the city is even considering this proposal. I look forward to the opportunity to present my comments at the Planning Committee meeting next week. Sincerely John Acampora i Wine, Linda From: Lois Freeman[Ifreeman001 @socal.rr.com] D Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park JUN 15 2009 Huntington Beach To Linda Wine PLANNING DEPT. As a downtown resident of HB, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of a 'Cultural Arts Center' at the Historic Triangle Park and Library site at Main and 6th Sts., as noted in the Downtown Specific Plan. A 3 to 4 story structure, offending the tranquil setting of the existing historic park and library and nearby residential neighborhood, predicted to draw as many as 300,000 visitors per year is not suitable for this location. There are many underutilized locations in the downtown to be considered before approving this site. In addition to my many concerns regarding the enormity of the project, one of my biggest concerns is the ingress and egress of the traffic flow getting to and from the 'Center.' There is no other way, except through the residential neighborhoods. As an example, traffic coming from the north, down Beach Blvd. would generally take the shortest route and turn off Beach Blvd. onto Main St. to get to the 'Center.' Thus driving past the high school and thru an all residential area to arrive at the 'Center' at Main and 6th Sts. for a theater performance or any other event that could be scheduled at the 'Center.' Then circulating around the 'Center' in a residential area to locate a parking structure entrance or on-street parking which is scarce to none. As Planning Commissioners, I hope you will be diligent in this process. Thank you in advance for your attention to this issue, Lois Freeman Downtown Huntington Beach Resident 1 Wine, Linda From: Peggy O'neal[beachinpob@campearth-com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:42 PM RECIEMED To: Wine, Linda Subject: library and triangle park JUN 15 2009 Please add two more voices to those residents and constituents opposing the Huntington Beach development of the downtown, main street library and triangle park. PLANNING DEPT. Seriously,we are not opposed to removing building that have passed their prime, nor the development of bare, weed infested lots anywhere in the greater downtown area. However,the current library structure is classic Surf City,and although HB will never look like Irvine with all its open spaces and beautiful parks,the effort should be made to retain what we have I Peggy O'Neal Gerald Barnes 20 year 6th Street residents 714-960-0100 Wine Linda From: Karen L. Niles[kniles@nilesrecruiting.com] Sent: Monday, June 15,2009 10:03 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Preserve Main St Library and Triangle Park Planning Commission, We are writing to urge you to preserve the Main St Library and Triangle Park. �a Hertz and Karen Niles 424 19th St JUN 15 20 99 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 lJowntown Specific Plan - Cultural Arts Center- Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1 M A IL Downtown Specific Plan- Cultural Arts Center Friday,June 12, 2009 7:23 PM From: "John Acampora" <jdacampora@gmail.com> To: linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org Dear Ms Wine, As a resident of downtown Huntington Beach, I am writing to you in opposition of the Cultural Arts Center as proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Billed as the anchor of the Huntington Beach Downtown Redevelopment Plan, this proposed complex will dramatically change the landscape, the historic presence, and lifestyle of our downtown neighborhood. The advocates for this development estimate that an additional 300,000 visitors will be attracted to the downtown area to visit the center and possibly stay an additional night in one of the local hotels (generating TOT). Although I believe the number is very optimist, and probably inflated to provide an economic justification for the project-that's still nearly 1,000 additional people every day congesting the streets and impacting the adjacent neighborhoods. Frankly in today's economic atmosphere, and with the debacle at Pacific City, I am amazed that the city is even considering this proposal. I look forward to the opportunity to present my comments at the Planning Committee meeting next week. Sincerely John Acampora http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=O&filterB y=&midindex=0&mid... 6/12/2009 Library preservation- Yahoo! Mail Page I of 2 Y 3 AIL Library preservation Thursday,June`il, 2009 6:44 PM From: "rbryantwe" <rbryantwe@aol.com> To: Iinda.wine@surfcity-hb.org Bcc: richardsonrary@yahoo.com X-Mailer: Pantomime (ADM 559) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="= 87C41AEF.8364.47E6.8FC2.99075ABAAF3A@aol.com" --=--a7C4!—AEF.8364.47EQ.8FC2.99OZ5ABAAF3A@La,ol.com Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; form at="flowed" Some concerned citizens have informed me and others that you are considering altering the Main Street Library site. Please know that I frequent the library and consider its property should not be altered by the addition of a cultural site. Let's enjoy the green space we have there. With all of the empty offices caused by the economic downturn, it would seem you have ample property to select from and most probably at a cost far less than constructing a new building. Please, please, us common sense to solve this problem and keep our green common areas. Respectfully Rob Bryant 200 PCH #348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-960-6091 --= 87C41AEF.8364.47E6.8FC2.99075ABAAF3A@aol.com Content-Type:text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html><body name="Mail Message Editor"><div><span class="Apple-style-span"style="font-style: normal; text-decoration: none;font-weight: bold;font-size: 12px;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS';color: black; background-color: transparent; ">Some concerned citizens have informed me and others that you are considering altering the Main Street Library site. Please know that I frequent the library and consider its property should not be altered by the addition of a cultural site. Let's enjoy the green space we have there. With all of the empty offices caused by the economic downturn, it would seem you have ample property to select from and most probably at a cost far less than constructing a new building. Please, please, us common sense to solve this problem and keep our green common areas.<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; font-size: 12px; font-family: 'Comic Sans MS; color: black; background-color: transparent; "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;font-size: 12px;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS; color: black; background-color:transparent; ">Respectfully</span></div></span></div><div id="signature_9760AE82-3059-4548-BBEE-F6FD94956094" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp- mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div id="sig_start">--<br></div><font class="Apple-style- span"face="'Comic Sans MS"'><font class="Apple-style-span"size="2"><span class="Apple-style-span" style2font-size: 10px; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#OOOOFF"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color:transparent;">Rob Bryant<div><span class="Apple-style-span"style="background- color:transparent;font-size: 10px; ">200 PCH #348</span></div></span></font></span></font></font><div><font class="Apple-style-span"face="'Comic http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.con/mc/showMessa2e?sMid=O&filterBv=&midIndcx=0&mid._ 6/11/'T009 t th<< Main Street Library and'l'nangle Park - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1 AIL. Ct"�ssic Fw: Main Street Library and Triangle Park Saturday,June 13, 2009 5:51 PM From. "Lois Freeman" <lfreeman001@socal.rr.com> To. "Karen Heidt" <karenheidt@yahoo.com>, "* Dan Kalmick" <dkalmick@gmail.com>, "Gloria Alvarez" <gloria@e-mailcom.com>, "John Acampora" <jdacampora@gmail.com>, "Kim Kramer" <kim@e-mailcom.com>, "Richardson Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>, "Sue Hart" <hb.diva@yahoo.com> -----Original Message ----- From: Lois Freeman To: linda.wine@surfcity-hb-org Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 2:33 PM Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park To Linda Wine As a downtown resident of HB, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of a 'Cultural Arts Center' at the Historic Triangle Park and Library site at Main and 6th Sts.as noted in the Downtown Specific Plan. A 3 to 4 story structure, offending the tranquil setting of the existing historic park and library and nearby residential neighborhood, predicted to draw as many as 300,000 visitors per year is not suitable for this location. There are many underutilized locations in the downtown to be considered before approving this site. In addition to my many concerns regading the enormity of the project, one of my biggest.concerns is the ingress and egress of the traffic flow getting to and from the 'Center.' There is no other way, except through the residential neighborhoods. As an example, traffic coming from the north, down Beach Blvd. would generally take the shortest route and turn off Beach Blvd. onto Main St. to get to the Center. Thus driving past the highschool and thru an all residential area to arrive at the Center at Main And 6th Sts. for a theater performance or any other event that could be scheduled at the Center. Then circulating around the Center in a residential area to locate a parking structure entrance or on-street parking which is scarce to none. As Planning Commissioners, I hope you will be diligent in this process. Thank you in advance for you attention to this issue, Lois Freeman Downtown Huntington Beach Resident httn //nc mr 55f) mail vahnn�nm/mr/chnwMP.ccauP�mirj_1 1 1(117 A1k-6vc4A AFrn4infhw 4r11 S/?fl!?() Fw: Main Street Library and Triangle Park - Yahoo! Mail Page I of 1 M A I Fw: Main Street Library and Triangle Park Friday,June 12, 2009 3:33 PM From: "Suzanne Hart" <hb.diva@yahoo.com> To: "* Dan Kalmick" <dkalmick@gmail.com>, "Richardson (Rich)Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>, "Lois Freeman" <lfreeman001@socal.rr.com>, "Gloria Alvarez Kramer" <gloria@e-mailcom.com>, "*John Acampora' <jdacampora@gmail.com>, "Karen Heidt" <karenheidt@yahoo.com>, "Kim Kramer" <kim@e-mailcom.com> Forwarded Message ---- From: Suzanne Hart <hb.diva@yahoo.corn> To: linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:29:30 PM Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park Dear Ms.Wine I would like to express my opposition to the proposed development of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park as per the Downtown Specific Plan. The plan calls for a multi-story tourist attraction, with the goal being to attract literally thousands of people into an already well established residential neighborhood. After having spoken with Jennifer McGrath, it is my understanding that this park was deeded to the city by the Huntington Beach Oil Co.. in the early 1900's to be maintained in perpetuity as an open space. The current library and park are a genuine asset with historic ramifications and are both highly valued by this community. It seems that the Huntington Beach Oil Co. possessed a high degree of enlightened insight as to what we, the future residents of the area, would require for a desirable quality of life. I would hope that you, as our Planning Commission, would.act on this matter in a equally enlightened manner. Many thanks for your consideration, Suzanne Hart Huntington Beach resident http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessa2e?sMid=O&filterBv=&midlndex=O&mid... 6/12/2009 Fw, Preservation of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library- Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 2 M A I L ----------- Fw: Preservation of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library Friday,June 12, 2009 6:22 PM From: "K W <karenheidt@yahoo.com> To: "Dan Kalmick" <dkalmick@gmail.com>, "Richardson (Rich) Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>, "Lois Freeman" <IfreemanOOI@socal.rr.com>, "Gloria Alvarez Kramer" <gloria@e-mailcom.com>, "John Acampora" <jdacamporaftmail.com> ----------- --------- ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: K H <karenheidt@yahoo.com> To: linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:42:58 PM Subject: Preservation of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library Dear Linda, I do hope that the proposal to develop Triangle Park and perhaps, eventually, eliminating the Main Street Library is defeated by the council. As a resident of the Townsquare Condominium complex, I use the Main Street library; there is no other convenient branch local to southwest Huntington Beach. Beside wanting to retain the historic value of the site and use of the library, I think this property is ill-suited as a capstone to the downtown development. It is out of the line of site of the downtown section of Main Street. The parking lot across from Jak's, if undeveloped, would certainly reduce any "glamor" in the area. The current stores are not of "tourist" interest and would be unlikely to draw the necessary foot traffic north. Even a performing arts center would not encourage daily foot traffic to benefit businesses. • A performing arts center would encourage dangerous traffic on event nights; currently the Townsquare Condominium residents can barely exit during summer high traffic to the beach. • The issue of rowdiness from the Main Street bars has not been resolved; why add more? In fact, why approve the proposed dance floor in a downtown bar without curfew restrictions or one-way traffic to the beach to keep the revelers away from downtown residents. • It is well-known that the downtown area is avoided by peaceful citizens because of its rowdy reputation (30 times the number of police calls as the Bella Terra area) and because of the "skinhead" menace. Controlled growth; traffic and curfew regulations that assist police officers in doing their jobs; and retention of the basic essence of Huntington Beach as a surfing community with 1, http://us.mc550.mail.vahoo.conVmc/showMessage?sMid=O&-filte.,rBv=kmiciInfii-.Y=Okmiti 1 i I 1/9 01 Fw: Preservation of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library-Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 2 4 character are more admirable goals for the council to attain. Sincerely, Karen Heidt http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?sMid=O&filterBy=&midlndex=O&mid... /I2/2009 [Pwd: Main Street Library] -Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 2 MIL [Fwd: Main Street Library] Friday,June 12, 2009 12:21 PM From: "Kim Kramer" <kim@e-mailcom.com> To: "* Gloria Alvarez" <gloria@e-mailcom.com>,"* Dan Kalmick" <dkalmick@g mail.com>, "* John Acampora" <jdacampora@gmail.com>, "*Lois Freeman" <lfreeman001@socal.rr.com>, "* Richardson Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>,"*Sue Hart" <hb.diva@yahoo.com> Hi Guys, Here is my e-mail to Linda Wine. Of course,your e-mails need to be "different." Would you please send your a-mails no later than Sunday and "blind copy"the Steering Committee and Karen or forward to the Steering Committee after the fact in case you don't know how to blind copy. Thanks. Kim P.S. I would suggest we do NOT send out any mass a-mails regarding the "Linda Wine strategy" until AFTER our rally. --------Original Message-------- Subject:Main Street Library Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:16:29-0700 From: Kim Kramer<kim@e-mailcom.com> To: linda.wine @ surfcity-hb.org Hi Linda, I would like to go "on record" as opposing the re-development of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. After studying the Specific Plan and speaking with several city officials on the City Council, Planning Commission and Marketing and Visitors Bureau, I am convinced this proposed re-development will be detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by so many residents of Downtown Huntington Beach. In addition, I think that the Main Street Library and Park should be preserved as part of the history and culture of downtown. http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.com/me/showMessaR-e?sMid=O&filterBv=&midlndex=0&mid.__ fi/f 1/20OQ [Fwd: Main Street Library] - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 2 Would you please express my concerns to the Planning Commission at the June 23rd meeting. Thank you for your time_ KimKramer Huntington Beach resident http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.conVrnc/showMessaize?sMid=O&filterBv=&rnidlndex=Okmid 6 V?f lf'IQ Ike: Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association- Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 2 DOV MAIL Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association Thursday,June 11, 2009 6:40 PM From: "Richardson Gray" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> _ To: "Susan Schwartz" <s1schwartz2@gmai1.com> Thanks a lot, Sue. Hope you can come to our rally on the 18th and the Planning Commission meeting on the 23rd. I really appreciate your support. ---On Thu,6/11/09, Susan Schwartz<slschwartz2@gmai1.com>wrote: From: Susan Schwartz<slschwartz2@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association To: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Date:Thursday, June 11, 2009, 12:43 AM FYI: 1 sent an email tonight to Linda Wine. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM, <richardson.gray@yahoo.com>wrote: Hello Fellow DRA Members, Rally June 18th Some of you might have already heard from Kim Kramer that we are having a rally in Triangle Park, behind the Main Street Library,on Thursday evening, June 18th,at 7:00. Please bring your friends and neighbors. We started handing out flyers this last weekend. A copy of our flyer is attached. Planning Commission June 23rd We are having this rally to get ready for the first Planning Commission Study Session on the Downtown Plan, including the City's development proposal for the Main Street Library and its surrounding Triangle Park. This first Study Session still is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, June 23rd, at 5:00, in Room B-8, next to the Council Chambers. It is possible but unlikely that this date will change the week before the meeting. I will try to keep you fully updated. Please put this date on your calendar and attend. If you are willing to speak publicly, you need to fill out a form and give it to an assistant to the Commission before the meeting starts. If you do not want to speak,we plan to give you something on your way into the building to hold that will identify you as a supporter in the audience. Either way,your attendance will really help our cause. Before the meeting, it would be very helpful if you send the Planning Commission an email, voicing your support for the preservation of the Main Street Library and its surrounding Triangle Park. The email address is linda.wine@surfcity-hb.org. Contact Information We have formed a Steering Committee, which has met a couple of times so far. One suggestion has been that we get full contact information on all of our members. Attached is a form we have started using, asking for name, address, phone, email address, how long you have lived in HB, and whether you own a business in HB. If you could email this into back to me, it will help us stay in http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.con/mc/showMessage?sMid=O&fid=Sent&filterBv=&midlnd... 6/i 1/2009 Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association-Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 2 ' touch. Thanks a lot- 7 Petition We now have the signatures of at least 2,465 residents on our petition to preserve the Main Street Library and its surrounding Triangle Park. We also have nearly 250 members in the DRA. We have attached another copy of our petition and a summary sheet about our efforts for HB Residents. If you could get more residents to sign it, and mail the original hard copies back to me, your work would greatly help our cause. 3 Triangle Park Deed Restriction We have learned in the last couple of weeks that the City's original deed for Triangle Park from 1 Chevron contained a restriction that this land be maintained as a park. To remind you, Triangle Park is the second oldest park in the City, dating back to 1912. The Main Street Library was built there in 1951, also making it an historic structure, more than 50 years old. Please let me know if you have any more ideas about how to move our cause forward. Thanks again to all of you for your continued support and encouragement. Richardson Gray 1415 Townsquare Lane#208 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com l http://us.mc550.mail.yahoo.con/mc/showMessa2e?sMid=O&fid=Sent&filterBv=&midlnd.._ 6/11/200O Wine, Linda Frorrr: Mark Leeson [mleeson@thematlockgroup.com) Sent. Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:42 PM - -'To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Hello Linda: As a Huntington Beach resident and business owner for the past 25 years I would like to voice my opposition gaJ the city's proposed development of Triangle Park. I live on Pecan Ave and my children regularly play on the grass around the library. We do not need another over budget underutilized developers'dream in Huntington Beach. Nobody's first thought in coming to Huntington Beach is "Let's find a cultural center" Please do everything in your power to stop this project. Thanks for your consideration. Mark Mark K. Leeson The Matlock Group, Inc. 18281 Gothard#202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Off. 1-714-596-6648 W IE C IE 0V E D Cell 1-714-308-6612 JUN 2 2 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Wine, Linda From: laura shuss[laurawshuss@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:58 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: triangle park Hi Linda, My name is Laura Shuss and I am a long time resident of Downtown Huntington Beach. I attended a rally tonight in order to support saving triangle park. I greatly enjoy living here. But I must say that there are things about living Downtown that I don't like, but most of those things are part and parcel of life here. I dislike the people getting in their cars and driving on my neighborhood streets at 2 am after drinking for hours on Main St., the tourist that make parking a daily nightmare, and the multitude of 3 story houses crammed 2 to a lot. I put up with those things because they come with the territory. But lately I've seen the things I dislike increase, as Huntington hosts big events on the beach almost every weekend, blocks off Main Street on Tuesday for the Farmer's Market, and added a new retail developments 5th Street. When will the development end?It's too much. Continual development may improve the city's tax revenues, but it negatively impacts my quality of life. Sincerely, Laura Shuss JU'N 222009 r-iunw igton Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: africaphile@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:01 PM - fo: Wine, Linda Subject: Downtown library property Several dozen people attended a meeting next to the Main Street library this evening, including me. I wish to go on record as being totally opposed to any new building on this property. Lois Vackar 1 J.UN 12 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From Roger Smith[rocketguy99@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:01 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: DTSP-Main St. Library and Triangle Park Ms.Wine, Hello. I am writing this email to you to add my voice to those who oppose the conversion of the Main St. Library and Triangle Park into a 4 story development. Its my opinion this development would create an unfriendly environment for the residents living near downtown Huntington Beach. I will be attending this Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting to show my support to eliminate this development from the plans, however preliminary those plans may be. Thank you, Roger Smith 501 Pecan Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 jUN 222009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda RMEMMUMOM 7rom: Ted and Carol Szuba [szubaszuba@mac.com] Friday, June 19, 2009 6:29 AM -4"0: Wine, Linda Subject: Save Triangle Park Linda Wine Planning Commission We have i�ved in HB for 55 years. We 302 Main Street. We :<- :, rake. away one of our last GREEN areas. Ted & Carol ,tuba JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach .PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Nicholas.Grey@fluor.com Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:04 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Keep Triangle Park and Main Street Library = Linda, Please reject the idea of destroying Triangle Park and Library in order to build a"Cultural Center'.The existing Park and Library is an icon of Huntington Beach's downtown area already providing a useful resource for the residents and visitors alike. Lets not cover every green space with concrete. Instead, keep the Park and refurbish the existing Library which I use very frequently. I am told the proposed 40,000 plus sq. ft., 45 ft high"Cultural Center' is intended to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors per year. This happens to be a residential area and attracting these additional visitors will stress the immediate residents even more than now with overcrowding, parking disputes, private property destruction, unruly behavior,noise and public drunkardness. If this center is needed then propose to build it in a commercial area. It is too late to recharacterize the Triangle Park area as a commercial area since, over recent years,the City has approved the building of numerous new residences in the area. If the ultimate intent was to make this a commercial area,with Cultural Center, - then the city should never have approved the building of the new residences in the first place. I urge you to reject this ill thought out idea and instead of a"Cultural Center', provide something more useful for the people who live in the immediate vicinity, for a change, leaving the current Park and Library intact. Many thanks for your attention Regards, JUN 2 2 2009 Nicholas Grey Huntington Beach Resident at the 500 block of Lake Street. PLANNING DEPT. Ph: 714 969 5916 949 349 2859 ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 Wine, Linda From: resnick home Email[resnick2@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, June 20,2009 11:05 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Triangle Park should be preserved as is. It is not the place for a cultural center with a restaurant and a large parking lot. Stand by one of the houses across the street from this site and imagine that you are one of the home owners. Not everything old should be torn down. We need to preserve the look of downtown Huntington Beach. DO NOT DEVELOP THIS PARK This is not the right location for a cultural center. thank you for your attention Meryl Resnick home owner and concerned resident of Huntington Beach barry resnick Email p.o. box 7849 4400 macarthur blvd,ninth floor neMort beach, california 92658 u.s.a. tel: 949 8519001 bresnickgvogt-resnick.com fax: 949 833 3445 Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this? JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Mireille.Grey@Fluor.com Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:08 AM To: Wine, Linda =— - Subject: Keep Triangle Park and Main Street Library ' Linda, I found out yesterday from some of my neighbors that the City of HB was planning to replace our public library on Main Street with a 4-story high so-called cultural center and do away with the green patch of grass surrounding it. This would be such a shame to go ahead with this ridiculous and costly plan. This part of downtown in its present condition serves a very important purpose as a buffer against the noisy, dirty and chaotic ambiance emanating from Main Street from PCH to Orange. It is the only place in Downtown HB that offers an authentic and peaceful feeling of good old-fashion "village-atmosphere". As far as I am concerned, HB is overdeveloped and most of the new(and even old)commercial offices built are and have been empty(some for years). Instead of spending more money on a grandiose and doomed-to-fail commercial project in a RESIDENTIAL area,our current library should simply be modernized to conform to the safety regulations and the park left alone. So please,VOTE NOT on this measure. Thank you for your consideration. Mireille Grey 512 Lake Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, , business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda ! x Sherry Marger[smmargerl@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:08 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Culture Well, I'm not totally shocked to see that it's about time that HB wants to add a little culture to the city. But at what cost? Do I think it's appropriate to want to build a 40,000 square foot facility in an over densely populated part of town? NO!!!!Do I think that it's okay to knock down a remnant of days gone past and to mutilate one of the last remaining green areas in the downtown section of town? NO!!!!! Do I think that HB will allow an oversized architectural monstrosity to be constructed on a minimum sized lot?YOU BETHM The planning commission does it all the time.Walk around town and see what the town has approved for home construction. Ugly, huge buildings on the smallest parcels of land. Not only should the planning commission be ashamed of themselves, but the architects should be shot at dawn. What about using the ugly blighted areas on the other side of town that need attention?Why not use the lots where the defunct Montgomery Ward buildings are a standing testament to greed?Or how about the Levitz eyesore?Those would make a perfect place to put a cultural arts building since it is in a commercial venue area! Or you should have thought about putting it in the Pacific Strand area where the development seems to be at a building standstill. That would have been a better place, with more land and parking availability. Would new construction add to the ambience of the downtown area?The new development that just went up Is certainly not doing that. The only thing that would improve that commercial district is to get rid of the bars and the surf shops.Then maybe we would want to go there to eat and shop. But then of course, you wouldn't be living up to the reputation of being "Surf City". I find in interesting that the only thing the political icons seem to want to fight for, is to keep the name from eing used by another city. Ay husband and I moved here 7 years ago from Claremont, a quaint little inland town that truly has culture. Don't make ne want to move back there by adding to the ruin of this beachside town. Is it culture that is circling overhead...or is it VULTURES along with the seagulls and pelicans? We reside in the Pacific Ranch area because we didn't want to move to that already congested area that is considered downtown...we're close enough where we are, but I feel empathy for those who want to keep their neighborhoods the way they are now. We stand with those who rallied last evening and we will support every effort to keep the little library, which we do frequent and to rally to improve HB, not ruin it! Respectfully submitted by Sherry and Bob Marger I JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Linda n: Peter Tillotson [peter.tillotson@gmaii.comj t: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:18 PM E Wine, Linda f ►ject: Triangle Park Wine, link the the proposed changes would be a travesty for Huntington Beach. The area CANNOT support a altural center"not would the center be a benefit to the local community. sople come to Huntington Beach for the beach, surf, sun and some fun, and would not extend their stay for a sit to a cultural center. believe the Library site should be reconfigured into a multiple use center, and that Triangle Park should -main undeveoped and available for the local Huntington Beach residents to enjoy. 4any thanks 'eter Tillotson JUN 2 20D9 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEFT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Ruthe Gorman [ruthe417@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:56 PM -To: citycouncil@surfcity-hb.org; kfritzel@surfcity-hb.org;Villasenor, Jennifer;Wine, Linda; aburris@ocregister.com Subject: OFFENSIVE REMARK BY MAYOR BOHR RE TRIANGLE PARK Dear City Council Members and Especially Mayor Bohr: I am extremely offended by the remark by Mayor Bohr in today's issue of the Register in which he says "It is a library with a patch of green space in a triangle that people bring their dogs to pee on". Not only is this remark condescending, arrogant and completely untrue, it shows that Mayor Bohr has no regard for his constituents. The proposed destruction of Triangle Park and the Main Street Library and its replacement with a mammoth 4- story "cultural center" is unconscionable for so many reasons it is difficult to know where to begin. Just for starters: a huge commercial building in the heart of a residential area would have an extremely negative effect on downtown residents, who already have to deal with severe parking problems,noise,vandalism, ev- Equally important, the library serves a vital purpose for both residents and visitors from around the world,who are, dependent on the library's computer access. Downsizing the existing library(i.e.replacing it with a small library component") is wrong. Mayor Bohr needs to apologize to the residents of Huntington Beach for his totally inappropriate remark. Then again,he might like to pave over the beach if it would bring in a few more dollars. Ruthe Gorman ; L7f If a V� 1 � a i JUN 2 21009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. i Wine, Linda From: Ruthe Gorman [ruthe417@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:04 PM To: Wine, Linda; Hardy, Jill; aburris@ocregister.com Subject: TRIANGLE PARK REDEVELOPMENT Dear Ms. Wine: I just e-mailed you a copy of an e-mail I sent to the City Council and other HB officials regarding the proposed redevelopment of Triangle Park. I also wanted to contact you directly to let you know how opposed I am to the proposed plan. As a 29-year resident of downtown Huntington Beach and a Main Street Library volunteer, I know what a vital role the library plays for both residents and visitors. It does not need to be downsized into a "library component". Furthermore, contrary to what Mayor Bohr thinks,Triangle Park is much more than a "patch of grass where people take their dogs to pee". It is the only green space in the surrounding area and needs to continue to provide open space for residents and visitors. A mammoth 40,000 s.f. 4-story building in the heart of a residential area would also have a very negative effect on our qualilty of life. We already contend with noise, severe parking problems,vandalism, etc. and the addition of a huge center would compound the problems that already exist. Let's put an end to this bad idea before it goes any further. Thank you for your consideration. 1151[EC [EaM[ED JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Denise Wada [denisewada@socal.rr.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:43 PM -'To: Wine, Linda Subject: Rally to Save Triangle Park Dear Linda, Thank you for the opportunity to voice my feelings on the development of Triangle Park. My husband and 1 have lived in downtown HB for the past 10 years bringing up our two young children, and we love the community feeling. As an artist the Cultural Center concept is a welcomed one, however I don't think you could have picked a worse location. That"little patch of green space" is dear to the overall downtown aesthetic, especially with the unique architecture of the library building. It is symbolic to our community and needs to be cherished for the longterm quality of life and not bulldozed and overbuilt to suit the short term needs of business. Please be creative and find other ways to enhance what is existing or develop this wonderful Cultural Center in an area that can accommodates to the full extent that is required to make it successful. Respectfully, Denise Wada 1020 Lake Street ( VF10 JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Kline, Linda From: Caitlyn Ballew[caitlyn_ballew@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:53 PM To: Wine, Linda _. Subject: Preserve Main St Library Dear Ms. Wine, I am writing as a concerned citizen of Huntington Beach. I have seen the proposed plans for the current location location of Main St. library and fear that the library and surrounding park will be threatened. I do not understand why there needs to be a "focal point" for the north end of Main St. The library has historic significance and the park that surrounds it is a welcome break from the the many buildings that exists around it. The library holds a special place in my heart-my mom fell in love with reading at that very library and I have been taking my daughter to story time there since she was 6 months old (she is now 26 months old). So in my family alone three generations have been impacted by the Main St. library. Many of the children run around in the park area before and after story time and it is sad to think that this area may be overtaken by a large structure. The enivornmental impact alone should give caution - though I know that for many appointed leadders in Huntington Beach money triumphs over the well being of the citizens. I like the idea of adding a cultural center to Huntington Beach though I do not feel that it belongs in the downtown area. It seems that it would better serve the city of Huntington Beach if it was located near Bella Terra. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I hope that my daughter can continue to enjoy Main St library and the surrounding park area. Sincerely, Catheryn Ballew lover of book & libraries, mother of Kehlan Ballew-lover of books, Main St library & story time 714-- 803-2909 www.caitlyniuiceplus.com www.standfortheworldschildren.org www.thehungersite.com - Click every day '7here,Ck - ivy.SettU41.W/bra,Ufe,,that lesktha.w the,ovwP, yow"e,capalAev of Uv"vW „ - Ne4o-n/Ma4ide s� E-WED JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. t Wine, Linda From: Lynda Myles[Imyles11@verizon.net] ,Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:12 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park&Main St. Library Project I am a home owner at Pecan Ave. & 12th St. The project planned at the Main St. Library location sounds like a good thing for the city. But you are building it at the wrong location. What amazes me about this possible destruction of the old library and park is that the City wasted about 2 years considering turning a large section of Main St. into a"historical district". And with the exception of a couple of properties, most of the area they were fighting about had nothing whatsoever of historical quality. Most of the homes were rental properties, ill maintained. Now, you are considering ruining a section of Main St.just a short distance down from the area you previously were going to designate historical. I don't get it. Why don't you build this new project at the southeast corner of Beach & Pacific Coast Hwy.where the boat storage used to be. Its a junky area now. Or where the movie theatre was at Main St. &Coast Hwy. The entire area where the old Golden Bear was located has never had any successful business. I would also like to add that until the city cleans up all the junk along the beach town, you will never be the premier destination you want. Everything from Beach Blvd. to the River Jetty is awful, except the newly built section in front of the ugly power plant. Tear down the awful rusty chain link fence and either have no fence along that stretch or put up something beautiful. Not chain fink. Plant beautiful landscaping all along that stretch of coast hwy to help the blight. And make the property owner of the oil pump at coast hwy and 7th st. landscape and put up decorative block wall to hide the blight of his property which is an eye sore to the town. We still have properties scattered all over the downtown that look like the poor sections of Alabama. Do something about this blight and make property owners clean it up. And remove the junky trailers on the pier and build real buildings like we once had. Neptune's Locker where you could get a glass of wine and food and sit and watch the sunset. I do see signs of improvement. The beautiful new signs Welcome to Huntington Beach on PCH, Goldenwest,Adams. Also the new restrooms being built at 9th St. and elimination of the ugly porta potties. Wonderful improvement. So, keep up the good things you are doing, but please do more to eliminate the blighted sections of the downtown,and find a different location for the project planned at the old library_ Remodel the library and make it even more wonderful than it is. Thank you Lynda Myles ENVEn JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: oneworld29-surf@yahoo.com Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:03 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Save Triangle Park and Library for the Residents Please Save Triangle Park and Library for the Residents! I Live at Lake and Palm,just a few short blocks from the Library and Park and I use them both regularly. Progress is good,but not at the expense of our quality of life here in HB. I also love the historic architecture of the library. I would like to see it remain as is,just retrofitted. Part of this cities charm for me is all of the different styles of homes we have here. It would be so boring if every building is mediterranean I am an artist and would love an Art and Cultural Center,just not there!!! To me it makes much more sense to have the center at the Pacific City site or somewhere closer to the Hyatt and Hilton.That would be a much nicer location that I would not be opposed to since the impact on residents would be lessened somewhat. The civic center also seems to me to be another option. I love this city,but am very disappointed in the direction our city officials seem to be heading.Most of the fee hikes hurt the residents and the reductions help the business'. When will the residents of this great city be thought of over the almighty dollar??? The small surf town feel of Huntington Beach we came to this city for is all but gone! Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration, Linda Aroz `V JUN 2 2 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Dean Boddy[dboddy@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:26 PM ---- --To: Wine, Linda Cc: Dean &Mary Boddy Subject: Save Our Neighborhood Our Park and our library. Hello, We are blessed to live in this wonderful NEIGHBORHOOD near the beach. We have the beach to share with many and do so. It is because we love the beach so much and want to share it with others, but we do not think we should share our small single lane streets with a venture of this scale which will bring so much more traffic and business trucks ect into a NEIGHBORHOOD. In your areas of the city that you could pick from you have many that will handle the traffic for size of building and this size project. We want our Library brought up to standards and our park left for our neighbor to enjoy as open space. Thanks for your time. Dean & Mary Boddy 416 Seventh Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 741-960-6285 Home 714-206-2080 Cell L'�vV JUN 2 2 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT 1 Wine, Linda From: Patti Clasen[PAClasen@socal.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:50 PM To: Wine, Linda _ Subject: Triangle Park Dear Ms. Wine, I am a 23 year resident of Huntington Beach. I live in the Peninsula which 12 years ago was an oil field so I can appreciate revitalization. Although I don't live downtown, I'm in the area of 6th and Main once or twice a week all year. 6th and Main does not need to be revitalized. It is a beautiful area with an "old timey"feel that is irreplaceable and sorely needed by all of us who value community. Plenty of visitors find their way up Main street to this peaceful area. Often people waiting to use Main Street Library's 6 computers are from another country. There's a new Italian restaurant on 6th and Main that serves food that sings in your mouth. Open only a month, many of us have been there multiple times. This is all the "anchor" needed. We don't need 400,000 people in this area to destroy our community. The beaches are for everyone to enjoy. I am proud to share this resource with visitors. Visitors belong at the beach, not in our neighborhoods. It is very sad to know that despite an excellent police force, the area within a few blocks of the beach is extremely dangerous. Please keep development at the beach, not where families are sleeping. It's been an amazing 25 years of rapid development in Huntington Beach. Development is exciting. It is also addictive. It is not too soon for the residents of Huntington Beach to say"enough already!" Sincerely, Patti Clasen JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Cheryl Gatch[bonpourvous@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:10 PM J 0' Wine, Linda Subject: Tuesday,June 23rd at 5:15 P Happy Saturday Linda, Looking f nnxard to still having access to our lovely Main Street Library,please make use of the new buildir =.Isinesses already built,we need a small park, grass, amidst the concrete. Should first finish pacific City, tix .;: .� .kderstand how much we need a safe, local, familiar tiny little haven that we can always count on when ri; Cheryl Gatch L LU JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: JohnnyMaleMan@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:54 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and Main St. Library Hello Linda, I am a resident on the 600 block of 7 th st. I think it would be very detrimental for the downtown residents to remove the Main St. Library/Triangle park. Perhaps another location for a Cultural Center would serve the residents and visitors better. Thank You, John A Hendricks Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips. JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wane, Linda From: dianepavesic@cs.com ,Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:24 PM - To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park&Main Street Library Dear Ms. Wine, I urge you to please reconsider the new development plan for the Main Library and Triangle Park. I am a 20 year resident of Huntington Beach, and I work as an independent contractor for the Parks and Recreation Department,teaching six weekly classes at Edison and Rodgers Senior Center.This project which will destroy an architecturally significant building, amongst the other problems which undoubtedly you are aware of, is more for benefit of tourists who destroy our neighborhoods rather than to improve the place we all of love to live. Thank you for your consideration. In peace, Diane M. Pavesic Email message sent from CompuServe-visit us today at http://www.cs.com JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: pavesic@cs.com Sent: Sunday,June 21, 2009 220 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triange Park Dear Ms Wine, I am writing to you as a long time resident of Huntington Beach. Through the 20 years I have lived here, I have seen a tremendous amount of development in Huntington Beach, both residential and commercial The downtown area has grown to be a strong tourist attraction with little to offer local residents unless you wwkt to go to a bar. This park and the library is the little bit of open space left downtown where a family can go to enjoy a wonderful green area and perhaps improve their minds at the Huntington Beach downtown library. If this space is taken for further development we will lose the little open space left downtown. It will be gone forever never to be enjoyed by our future generations living in Huntington Beach. I respectfully ask you to listen and support the voice of the residents of this area as it relates to the potential redevelopment of this property and keep it the way it is. Sincerely, Ronald Pavesic Huntington Beach Email message sent from CompuServe- visit us today at http://www.cs.com s � tccij� JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. i Wine, Linda From: Vllasenor, Jennifer ,Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:08 AM - To: Wine, Linda Subject: FW: downtown library ADD ON TO PC PACKAGE FOR 6-23-09 rd&"Vt L City of Huntington Beach Planning Department From:Jennifer Teter-Mitchell [mailto:Teter-Mitchell@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday,June 21, 2009 7:24 PM To:aburris@ocregister.com;Villasenor,Jennifer; Bohr, Keith; Fritzal, Kellee Subject: downtown library I read in the OC Register that the downtown library is being considered for teardown and I am a concerned citizen who thinks this is a bad idea.A large 4 story building in the place a historical building and park would be out of place and destroy the quaint ambiance of that part of town. It's unfortunate that the Huntington Beach city"fathers"do not value saving some of Huntington Beach history instead of overbuilding and destroying unique architecture. I would prefer to see the city preserve some spaces as they do in Pasadena and Santa Monica and many other cities in California. Doing so would preserve the unique ambiance of our city. Jennifer Teter-Mitchell 714.883.5401 cell lR1 �J Linkedin.com Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/b/a43/426 JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Dina Alvarez[dinal1@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:21 AM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: SAVE TRIANGLE PARK!! Importance: High Dear Linda Wine, I am a resident of Huntington Beach, and would like to express my opposition to the City's plans to build a cultural arts center in the downtown residential area-Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I believe that a cultural arts center should NOT be constructed in a residential area, and that it would permanently disturb the quality of life for the residents. I feel there are better locations within the city for this type of project. I understand that the land was donated in the early 1900's specifically for the purpose of a Park/Library for the residents to enjoy. It is my hope that the Planning Commission will take this into account, and reconsider the location for this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Dina Alvarez SEC OVED JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Dear Linda Wine, ` I am and have been a resident of Huntington Beach for 41 years, and would like to express my opposition to the City's plans to build a cultural arts center in the downtown residential area- Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I believe that a cultural arts center should NOT be constructed in a residential area, and that it would permanently disturb the quality of life for the residents. I feel there are better locations within the city for this type of project. I understand that the land was donated in the early 1900's specifically for the purpose of a Park/Library for the residents to enjoy. It is my hope that the Planning Commission will take this into account, and reconsider the location for this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Rikki Ortiz [rikki@rfgcorp.net] no E MOVED r UN 2 2 2009ntington BeachANNING DEPT. i Wine, Linda From: Wayne Rylski[wwr@e-sbco.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:03 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: downtown library I own a house on 1 Sh Street and a condo (where my disabled adult son lives) at Pier Colony 200 PCH in H.B. Please do not mess with the downtown library building and its surrounding park. A Cultural Center is a fine idea but not there. How about the property on Main St. where Mandic Motors operated for all those years. It is for sale. Wayne Rylski Scherrnerhorn Bros.Co. 800 932 9395 QED JUN 2 2 zoos rHuntington 80aahLANiVING OEPT: Wine, Linda From: G Jackson [gmj17_@hotmail.com] 'Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:16 PM •: fTo: Wine, Linda Subject: Opposed to City Plans Dear Linda Wine, I am a resident of Huntington Beach, and would like to express my opposition to the City's plans to build a cultural arts center in the downtown residential area - Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I believe that a cultural arts center should NOT be constructed in a residential area, and that it would permanently disturb the quality of life for the residents. I feel there are better locations within the city for this type of project. I understand that the land was donated in the early 1900's specifically for the purpose of a Park/Library for the residents to enjoy. It is my hope that the Planning Commission will take this into account, and reconsider the location for this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 0 s t_- JUN 2 2 2009 - gmi17 (d)-hotmail_com Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: tbrown@socal.rr.com Sent: Monday,June 22, 2009 1:19 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Save Triangle Paris Ms. Wine, A Huntington Beach residents for 8 years, my household does not support any modification to Triangle Park. While I don't live downtown, I do live on Indianapolis Ave and will subject to any increased traffic this project may produce. The city needs to take into account all aspects of their actions. People five here, not everything is a revenue opportunity. Thomas Brown 10) JUN 2 2 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: James Melton Damesm@socal.rr.comj ".Sent: Monday, June 22, 20091:30 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main St library/Triangle Park Regarding the downtown Huntington Beach library on Main Street and the surrounding'Triangle Park," I am opposed to redevelopment_ As a downtown resident/homeowner/stakeholder, I feel that anything other than maintaining and retrofitting the existing library to current earthquake standards, would be detrimental to the community. I certainly don't see a need for a performing arts center,when we have(a reportedly underutilized) one already at Central Park. Based on the information that I have, it seems to me that these proposed developments will come at a high price to the local residents, in the form of reduced:library size,panting,and green area. With this,we will likely have increased: congestion, noise,trash,loitering, crime,etc. When I hear of proposals to try to bring more tourists and visitors to downtown, it reminds me of the old joke about the nightclub owner that goes something like'you couldn't get another person in the club, and there was the club owner with a crowbar cramming more people in.' 1 believe I speak for the majority of downtown residents/homeowners/stakeholders,when I say—enough already. Downtown is already overcrowded and public areas under-maintained. We need less bars masquerading as restaurants. We need more police presence. We need the city to clean up after all of the tourists it works so hard to draw in. Most downtown homeowners I talk to dean up trash daily from visitorshourists. I would welcome a paradigm shift to thinking more in terms of maintaining what we already have downtown, and celebrating the history (like this library—which has architectural significance). We need more frequent street cleaning,sidewalk cleaning, more parking, and more police to patrol our current downtown. I view downtown Huntington Beach as the crown jewel of the city, not as the economic engine to support every housing tract between PCH and the 405 freeway. Please take the downtown residents'concerns into account as you weigh these proposals of change. 4incerely, James Melton 206 2nd Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 JUN .2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING.DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Julian Cummings[doules67@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 1:53 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: Fritzal, Kellee;Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: concerns regarding development plans for Triangle Park To the members of our City Planning Commission and Economic Development Department: I am writing prior to the upcoming City Planning Commission meeting to express my deep concerns and strong opposition to the development plans for Triangle Park as outlined in the June 2009 draft Downtown Specific Plan. As a nearby downtown resident, I feel that the proposed development of a cultural center complex in this location is completely inappropriate for several reasons. First,the City of Huntington Beach is already deficient in the amount of green open space provided on a per capita basis,and this development would only exacerbate that problem. The proposal includes the notion of replacing much of the lost open space by providing a greenbelt area in the present location of 6th Street, but such a narrow strip of land between two very tall buildings(the proposed cultural center and Townsquare Condominium)would be far less pleasant and enjoyable than the existing Triangle Park. Second, a massive development like this will inevitably do severe damage to private residential property values in the adjacent neighborhood. In addition to losing our nice views and pleasant open space,nearby homes will face directly into three-story cement walls or a parking garage entrance or a commercial loading dock area, and residents will be subjected to several years of construction vehicle traffic and noise followed by a permanent and massive increase in vehicle traffic through our two-lane residential roads. The proposed location simply does not have the infrastructure available to handle a projected increase of 400,000 tourists per year, and there is no reasonable way to insert such infrastructure within the heart of a residential neighborhood. There are plenty of other locations in Huntington Beach that would be more appropriate for such a development, such as the Civic Center Plaza area or the area neighboring Central Park and the Recreational Sports Park. Both of these locations have wider roads and more parking space,and no directly adjacent homes would be negatively impacted. Third, it is not at all clear that a new cultural center is even needed or desirable for Huntington Beach at this time. There is already an existing art center and museum directly across the street from Triangle Park and the Main Street Library, and it is apparently not very well attended. Why not focus on redeveloping this existing center and perhaps reorienting it to better match the tone and environment of Huntington Beach,with displays on beach life, surfing,the ocean, or Southern California history? Revitalizing the existing art center would do much to enhance our neighborhood and way of life without disrupting the pleasant downtown environment we have come to enjoy. There is even room to expand the existing art center building somewhat without doing any harm to our historic library building, Triangle Park, or the surrounding neighborhood, because no residents are directly adjacent. I understand that the draft proposal for the Downtown Specific Plan is only a proposal,and that such development may not go forward for many years, if at all. Nevertheless,I think it is absolutely vital that this proposal be completely removed from the DTSP and that Triangle Park be declared off-limits for any future development. With the existing deficit of open-space public lands in Huntington Beach, it is imperative that we fiercely protect the few resources we have left for current and future residents. I hope that my opinions will be reflected and considered during the upcoming City Planning Commission meetings. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,Julian C. Cummings 415 Townsquare Lane,#309,HB JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach i PLANNING DEPT. Wine, Linda From: richardson.gray@yahoo.com JUN 2 2 2009 .Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 4:26 PM Huntington Beach o: Wine, Linda PLANNING DEPT. Villasenor, Jennifer; Fritzal, Kellee; Machado,Jason Subject: Corrected Public Comment for June 23rd Study Session on Downtown Specific Plan Update Dear Ms. Wine: I accidentally sent you an earlier draft of this email. For the Planning Commission,please only use this email, and not the earlier draft, as my public comment. Please include this email in its entirety as a part of the record of written public comments for the Planning Commission's June 23rd Study Session on the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of June 12, 2009(June Draft Plan). In December 2008, a group of neighbors re-started the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association(the "DRA")on two complementary principles. The first is that solid residential neighborhoods surrounding downtown are invaluable in building and maintaining a strong recreational,retail,and cultural climate along and near Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The second is that a pleasant and family-oriented recreational,retail, and cultural district provides an attractive set of amenities for residents and visitors of downtown. )ur mission is to ensure that the concerns of residents regarding downtown receive a fair hearing with the "ity's government. Membership is open to any Huntington Beach resident who has an interest in improving the quality of life for the residential neighborhoods near downtown. By June 2009,we already have a growing member roster of approximately 350 residents. The catalyst for our re-founding the DRA has been a petition to preserve the Main Street Library, and the Triangle Park on which it sits. By June 2009,we have just under 3,000 Huntington Beach residents as signers of our petition,with 4,000 expected by the Council's vote on the Downtown Plan in September 2009. One Example of the City's Apparent Inattention to Downtown Resident Concerns I know of one example of the City's apparent inattention to resident concerns regarding the June Draft Plan. In spite of the opposition, from the nearly 3,000 signers of our petition so far, to any increase in the building density at the Main Street Library and at Triangle Park,which currently is about 10,000 square feet,the City has increased the permitted new cultural space by 50%,to 30,000 square feet up in the June Draft Plan from 20,000 square feet in the Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4, 2008 (December Draft Plan). This increase leaves me to believe that the City is not listening to our concerns, as its residents, voters, taxpayers, and constituents. Supporting Reasons for Our Petition • The unlikely feasibility of a large "Cultural Center" is an unwise use of scarce tax dollars. • A large project on Triangle Park will cost abutters millions in lost property values. 0 A large project on Triangle Park will substantially degrade downtown's only park away from the beach, and the second oldest park in the City, dating back to 1912. 1 ® A large"Cultural Center"on Triangle Park would be a misplaced anchor, locating a major noise, traffic, and air pollution generator on the border of established residential neighborhoods. Better locations would be the six closed movie theaters at Pierside Pavilion or the old Mandic Motors site (which possibly could include Electric Chair). Mandic is the most distant property with clear visibility from the Pier,which should increase pedestrian traffic. ° • The Main Street Library and Triangle Park provide a necessary buffer and transition between ` downtown's dense commercial district and its established residential areas. • The proposed reconfiguration of Sixth Street and Pecan Avenue would reinstate a design that the City abandoned for good reasons over twenty years ago. • The preservation of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park has been endorsed by Huntington Beach Tomorrow,the Sierra Club,the Townsquare Condominiums and Town Homes,and the Parks Legal Defense Fund. Without any specific effort, a majority of the members of the City's Historic Resources Board have signed our petition. • The City's historic preservation consultant, Galvin Preservation Associates(updating the City's inventory of historic resources), and the City's Historian, Jerry Person,have publicly recognized the Main Street Library building's historic importance. DRA Written Comments to December Draft Plan The DRA submitted extensive written comments to the December Draft Plan,which were omitted from the Planning Commission's June 23rd Study Session Report on the June Draft Plan. The DRA comments package included a 12-page cover letter, copied in full at the end of this email,36 pages of attachments, and a complete copy of our petition with its 640 signers at that time. I personally delivered this package, addressed to Jason Machado per Economic Development's instructions, on January 22, 2009 at about 4:00 PM,one full day before the deadline. Jason was not in at the time and I left this package with Kathi Nelson at Economic Development. Today, on the phone,Jason confirmed that he in fact did receive this January 22, 2009 package. Although I mistakenly thought that the December Draft Plan was the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR),my discussion still fully applies to the City's providing notice of availability and instructions for public comments on the December Draft Plan,in the section at the end of the January 22, 2009 letter entitled,Inadequacy of the Community Process and Public Notices. Thank you for including this email in its entirety in the Planning Commission's package for the its June 23rd Study Session on the June Draft Plan. I look forward to speaking during the public comment period at this meeting. Richardson Gray The DRA's cover letter to its written comments for the December Draft Plan is copied below: c/o Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray@yahoo.com January 22, 2009 HAND DELIVERED 2 _ City of Huntington Beach Economic Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Jason Machado Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update("HBDSPU") Draft Environmental Impact Report("Draft EIR") and its Cultural Arts Overlay(the"Overlay") Dear Mr.Machado: Our Petition We have enclosed a copy of our petition from six hundred forty(640) registered voters who reside in Huntington Beach. If you need to examine the original of our petition, please let us know. With such an enthusiastic response in the first few weeks of our grass roots campaign,we expect that well over two thousand(2,000)Huntington Beach registered voters will have signed this petition by the City Council's public hearings on the HBDSPU,tentatively planned for the summer of 2009. The substance of our petition reads as follows: "We recommend the following change in the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft of December 4,2008 and its Cultural Arts Overlay: The City should continue and maintain for the long term the existing land uses on the Main Street Library site in their present heights,sizes,and configurations. } Jason Machado January 22, 2009 Page 2 of 12 "For this Main Street Library site,we believe that the addition of a performing arts or cultural center with a permissible height of up to forty-five(45) feet and four(4) stories, and as much as twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in net new development,would be incompatible with and substantially degrade the aesthetic quality of the immediate surrounding area and its existing established residential uses. We think that no mitigation measures are feasible to minimize these significant adverse impacts." Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association A group of Huntington Beach registered voters, all of whom have signed our attached petition, recently has formed the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association ("H.B.D.R.A." or more simply, the "DRA"). Membership in our group is open to any Huntington Beach registered voter who is interested in improving the quality of life for the residential areas in or near downtown. Our motivation for creating this association is to ensure that the concerns of residents regarding downtown receive a fair hearing with the City's government. In the past,we believe that the City too often has provided inequitably favorable treatment to downtown businesses and private developers, at the expense of the many voters who live in or near owntown. With the DRA as a grass roots political organization,we intend to take active roles in future City Council campaigns,working to elect candidates who endorse our goals and striving to defeat those 3 who pay too little attention to our positions. One example of the City's apparent lack of sufficient concern for downtown residents is its inadequate response thus far to the intolerable late night noise on residential streets from patrons of bars along or near Main Street, especially on weekends during the summers. See the attached copy of a cover story on downtown's _ rowdiness from the August 14,2008 Huntington Beach Wave, a weekly newspaper published by the Orange County Register. Another example is the issue at hand,the City's proposal to degrade the only public park in downtown away from the beach by developing a new monolithic structure on the public park surrounding the Main Street Library(the "Main Street Park"). We are convinced that solid residential areas surrounding downtown are invaluable in building and maintaining a strong business climate along and near Main Street,in the same way that a pleasant retail district provides an attractive set of amenities for residents and visitors of downtown. Unlikely Feasibility of Cultural Center as Unwise Use of Increasingly Scarce Tax Dollars According to the attached and highlighted January 1,2009 front-page article from the Huntington Beach Independent, a weekly newspaper owned by the Los Angeles Times,the City's Economic Development Director Stanley Smalewitz says that the proposed cultural center still Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 3 of 12 requires a feasibility study. Similarly,the enclosed and underscored Draft EIR page 8-4 acknowledges that no feasibility study has been attempted for the proposed cultural facilities. I The current worldwide economic crisis is inflicting substantial negative impacts on California, Orange County,and Huntington Beach tax revenues,while reducing or even eliminating State,County, and City borrowing capacities. In this extremely challenging environment,the City's work on proposing a major new cultural center,without first exploring its uncertain feasibility, arguably is an unwise use of the City's increasingly scarce taxpayer dollars. We are not alone in our concerns, as you can see from the attached October 7,2008 editorial by Bill Borden from the Orange County Register, "downtown H.B. study a waste of money,time". Cultural institutions throughout Southern California have been struggling financially of late,most notably including Costa Mesa's performing arts center and Los Angeles' Museum of Contemporary Art. In addition,we believe that Orange County does not have the critical mass of arts patrons to support another Laguna Beach,which of course would be major competition to any effort we might make in our downtown. It has taken Laguna Beach decades to build their downtown as a center for art galleries. Large Proiect on the Main Street Park Will Cost Abutters Millions in Lost Values Replacing the Main Street Park as it now sits with a large cultural anchor,in the midst of the homes adjoining the Overlay, will denigrate the aesthetic quality of this residential setting and result in a decimation of the market and tax values of the abutting residences. These single-family homes, condominiums, and town homes have an estimated total market value in the range of$75 million, in sum more than one hundred ten (110)properties,over twenty(20) single-family homes along Sixth Street and Pecan Avenue and eighty-nine f (89)condominiums and town homes at Townsquare. The Board of Directors of the Townsquare condominiums and townhomes unanimously has voted to oppose the City's proposed redevelopment of 4 the Main Street Park and Main Street Library. Situating and,,sizing the proposed cultural center, as it is set out in the Draft EIR,will cost the adjoining residential owners millions of dollars in the reduced values of their homes. The City's mere 'proposal of replacing the Main Street Park as it now sits with a large cultural center,by including this concept in the Draft EIR, already has significantly reduced the market and tax values of all adjoining homes,with the declines continuing until this idea is removed in the Final EIR. Degradation of Main Street Park--Downtown's Only Public Park Away from the Beach The Overlay contains the beautiful and pastoral Main Street Park,which provides the only public park, and the only significant amount of green and open space,in Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 4 of 12 downtown away from the beach. Of the approximately fifty thousand(50,000) square feet of total land area in the combined sites of the Main Street Library and Main Street Park, as much as forty thousand(40,000) square feet are devoted to green and open space. Moreover,downtown has relatively little green and open space away from the beach compared to other areas of Orange County and Huntington Beach with comparable levels of residential development. As downtown's only public park away from the beach,the Main Street Park abuts and serves established residential areas. For your reference,we have enclosed an aerial photograph and five other pictures of the Main Street Library and the Main Street Park, and a photo of the City's sign at the Main Street Park delineating the =ark's regulations from the Public Property,Parks section of the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code. In spite of this"green-impoverishment"in a densely populated community,the City is proposing a structure on the Main Street Park that could triple the library building's current size of roughly ten thousand (10,000) square feet,to make a thirty thousand(30,000) square foot cultural center. This amount of space, for example, three hundred(300) feet by one hundred(100)feet, is well over half the size of a football field. Moreover,the City wants to set this monolithic structure's permissible height at forty-five(45)feet or four(4) stories. Incredibly,the tallest buildings currently in downtown Huntington Beach,all along Pacific Coast Highway at or near Main Street, are this same height of four(4) stories. These ideas are highlighted on the enclosed pages 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, and 3-59 from the Draft EIR. Although the Overlay calls for no net loss of green space,the Draft EIR provides only a ring of green space circling a massive new building,which has neither the strong aesthetic impact nor the psychological benefits of the present large swaths of grass and stately, old growth palms trees. The Main Street Park and Main Street Library have sat undisturbed in their current locations for over fifty(50)years. Furthermore, a portion of the proposed green space in the Overlay,where a part of Sixth Street would be closed,does not receive very much direct sunlight. This new"park", as it is so-called in the Draft EIR,will end up as an often shady canyon and wind tunnel sitting between two tall buildings, Townsquare condominiums at three (3)stories and the proposed cultural center and possible residential at four (4)stories(with no upper floor setbacks). We fear that the new"park"will be comparable to the dead space of the Third Street plaza bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. Despite this plaza's plush landscaping and elegant fountain, 5 bordered by Pier Colony at four(4)stories on one side and by Pierside Pavilion at three(3)stories on the other (including upper floor setbacks),the area feels Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 5 of 12 dark and unfriendly to pedestrians and is little used. For similar reasons,we predict that few people will want to use the new"park"at the closed Sixth Street in the Overlay. Replacement of Land Uses Exclusively for Public Benefit with the Possibilities of Some Retail Uses and Seventy-Five Percent(75%)Multi-Family Residential Uses At present,the Main Street Library and the Main Street Park are devoted exclusively to the benefit of the public. As shown on the attached page 1-7 of the Draft EIR,the City's current General Plan designates the Overlay solely as public space. This exclusive public space designation for the Overlay should be maintained in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR at page 3-56, conversely, allows three(3)of the permissible (4) stories of new structures in the Overlay to change to multi-family residential uses,with a conditional use permit. In addition,the Overlay allows ground floor retail uses, so long as they are related to the adjacent cultural arts uses. These proposed changes in land uses tape parcels that currently provide one hundred percent(100%)public benefits and creates the possibility that the sites' public space could be reduced to less than twenty-five percent(25%) of the new buildings' square footage. Instead,we recommend that all land uses in the Draft EIR's Overlay should maintain their present exclusive devotion to public benefits. For this reason,the possibility of upper-floor,multi-family residential uses in the Overlay should be deleted in the Final EIR. According to the minutes of the August 23,2007 meeting of the City's Downtown Economic Development Committee,"Council has directed staff to maximize the development of the downtown area." Probably not coincidentally,the City also hired its consultants in August 2007, and then began work on the IIBDSPU. Although most residents favor intelligent,well-designed,and sustainable development in downtown,we believe that few people want the City to maximize development in this area. We fear, as well, that the City's primary objective for the Overlay is to sell off its public park and its historic public library to a private developer,for the rights to build three(3) stories of condominiums or apartments above the proposed cultural center. As evidence of a pattern of building on parkland,using a public review process that is at least arguably inadequate, Huntington Beach is a defendant in a lawsuit attempting to stop the construction of a new senior center in the City's Central Park, which is about two(2)miles from the ocean. See the attached March 28, 2008 Orange County Register article. This new senior center would replace the Rodgers Senior Center,located at the corner of Seventeenth Street and Orange Avenue,three(3)blocks from the beach. As with the proposed degradation of the Main 6 Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 6 of 12 -- ;street Park,this relocation will contribute to a further depletion of City services in downtown. Although we understand that the Rodgers site is restricted to recreational uses,we again fear that a motivation for building the new senior center inland on a public park might be for the City to sell off public land near the ocean to a private developer. Misplaced Anchor As we understand it,a major impetus for the City's proposing a cultural center in the Overlay is to provide a second anchor at the opposite end of Main Street from the other anchor,the Pier. In this way, downtown would have a layout similar to many shopping malls,with anchors at each end, drawing people back and forth between the inline retail stores in the middle. The major problem with this second-anchor approach is that the Overlay sits in the midst of established residential areas, making the Overlay an unacceptable location for a large commercial project. Moreover,we are convinced that few Huntington Beach residents want Main Street to have the layout or feel of a shopping mall. A significant planning issue for all of downtown is the City's ongoing missteps in not providing acceptable buffers and transitions between commercial uses and residential areas. The City's idea of locating a large cultural center at the Main Street Library and the Main Street Park would create another substantial design mistake of allowing too little buffer or transition between a major commercial project and an established -residential neighborhood. If the proposed cultural center were built as set out in the Draft EIR,the current Pecan Avenue,where it is to be reopened to Sixth Street,would have a look and feel comparable to the lopsided,dwarfed, and less than attractive residential streetscape of Sixth Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Walnut Avenue. This beachfront block of Sixth Street is bordered by the four(4) story,newly completed Strand on one side (including upper floor setbacks) and the one(1),two(2),and three(3) story residences on the other. Questionable Commitments in the Overlay to the Design Standards of the Draft EIR The fourth and final community workshop of December 4,2008, concerning the HBDSPU (the "Final Community Workshop"),was attended by approximately one hundred(100)concerned citizens. At this meeting,the City's consultant, RRM Design Group, made a slideshow presentation regarding the HBDSPU, including the Overlay(the"RRM Presentation). In spite of the design standards for residential buffers, underscored in two(2)of the attached six (6) pages from the RRM Presentation,the Overlay does not appear to follow these exact same standards. For example, the design standards call for protection of established residential neighborhoods,while the City's idea for a massive cultural center in the Overlay would degrade its adjoining established residential areas. Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 7 of 12 Similarly, the design standards call for reduced building heights adjacent to residential uses,while the Overlay places a forty-five(45) foot, four(4) story structure directly next to single-family homes and condominiums. On one highlighted portion of the attached page 3-57,the Draft EIR goes even further,in that it requires no upper floor setbacks for the proposed cultural center and its possible residences above. Instead, the building could have sheer walls forty-five(45) feet tall. Finally,the design standards require that lighting,odors,and noise be directed away from residential uses. We assume that a performing arts component of the proposed cultural center regularly would serve as a live music venue,placing a major new noise generator directly in the midst of an established residential neighborhood. Alternative Location An idea we have proposed repeatedly is that a new cultural center, so long as the project has market feasibility,be located in the six (6)screen cinema space which closed last year in Pierside Pavilion at Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street,with its existing underground parking garage. This space has twenty-six thousand (26,000) square feet that is available for lease to the City. It would be much easier,and less expensive to City, County, and State taxpayers, to convert this location into a cultural center than to build a new structure at the Main Street Park and the Main Street Library. As well,people using a proposed cultural center logically should prefer a location near the beach,where the bulk of the downtown's dense commercial development sits. The second floor outdoor plaza.at Pierside Pavilion, with its breathtaking views of the beach,the ocean,the pier, Catalina Island,and spectacular sunsets would be ideal for fundraisers, weddings, and other special events—all moneymakers for a City-sponsored arts center. Live performances inside could echo back to the grand history of the now closed Golden Bear of Huntington Beach, and the many famous acts that played there. If the City does not lease this space for its cultural center,we understand Pierside Pavilion will carry out _ its current approach to convert the cinemas to offices. This conversion likely will be a difficult one, given the present configuration for movie theatres with very high ceilings,large floor plans,and too few windows. As well, downtown already has a large amount of un-leased offices because of its long travel times to the expressways, of at least fifteen minutes one-way without traffic. We fear that any new offices at Pierside Pavilion might sit empty during a long leasing period or attract subpar rents, and add to the current supply- demand imbalance for office space in downtown. Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 8 of 12 Realignment of Sixth Street to an Unworkable Design that the City Abandoned in 1988 The present curve in Sixth Street near its intersection with Main Street, and the current ninety(90) degree corner in Pecan Avenue,was created by the City twenty years ago. In 1988, Sixth Street was a straight road, running from Pacific Coast Highway to Main Street,through the present landscaping at the beginning of Sixth Street's curve, and onward through the current Pecan Avenue. This pre-1988 layout was abandoned by the City at that time to provide the present, attractive green and open space, and the greater protection from through traffic for the homes along Sixth Street near Orange Avenue, and along Pecan Avenue from its ninety (90) degree corner to Main Street. The 1988 redesign of these roads and this green space is shown in the attached December 12, 1988 letter from the City to Lois Freeman, and its accompanying sketch. The City now is proposing a return to this same antiquated street layout, shown on the attached pages 3- 8 59, 5-4,and 5-5 of the Draft EIR,which it abandoned twenty years ago as less desirable than the current in- place design. We believe the City has been proven correct in forsaking this pre-1988 configuration, and that the current Iayout has proudly withstood the test of time in its strong aesthetics and functionality over the last twenty years. We think to return to an outdated design from the 1980s would be an obvious s= -Ind costly mistake by the City. Development Sited on the Main Street Park Requires Voter Approval As you can see from the attached copy, Section 612(b) of the City of Huntington Beach's Charter ("Measure C") requires a citywide referendum and voter approval of any development projects undertaken on public parkland. Even though Section 612(c)exempts libraries,we believe that the Main Street Park should not be included in this exemption. The Main Street Park has functioned as a public park,with all of a public park's customary attributes, and has been regulated by the City as a park,for its entire history of over fifty(50)years in its current use. Huntington Beach residents and visitors enjoy the Main Street Park regularly throughout each day for all of the purposes that a public park is typically utilized. Parents play with their children at this park. People take walks on the park's grass, or along its sidewalks,or simply sit on the grass in the sun or in the shade of the park's old growth,majestic palms. Residents or visitors walk or play with their dogs at the park. Crucially as well,the beautiful Main Street Park serves as a quaint and scenic gateway to downtown's retail district. Main Street Park in this way provides a necessary and attractive buffer or transition between the established residential areas that border it and the busy downtown shopping and tourist destinations closer to the beach and pier. Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 9 of 12 With much of downtown's residential development so dense that nearly all its residents have little or even no grass and landscaping at their homes, and almost no space between their homes,the Main Street Park allows its neighbors the only place in downtown to have some welcome breathing room and peace. Main Street Park gives residents and visitors significant swaths of green and open space downtown,the only such spots downtown,to escape the congestion of Main Street's retail district,the beaches, and the pier, which all often are filled wall-to-wall with tourists during the summers and warm days throughout the year. For all of these reasons,the Main Street Park provides all of the community benefits and functions that a public park customarily gives a city's residents and visitors, and it is regulated by the City as a public park. Accordingly,Main Street Park should come under the restrictions for development of Measure C from the City's Charter. Given these facts,the only reasonable and legal process,for the City to consider building a proposed cultural center and possibly condominiums or apartments on the Main Street Park, is for the City first to hold a citywide referendum on its development ideas. The City then could legally proceed with its development ideas only if they were approved by a majority of the voters in such an election. Inadequacy of the Community Process and Public Notices We appreciate the City's including the following requirements in the RRM Presentation, which are highlighted in the attached six pages from this document: 9 a) All parking underground in the Overlay(confirmed on attached Draft EIR page 3-32); b)No net loss of green space in the Overlay(confirmed on attached Draft EIR page 3-58); c) Protect established residential neighborhoods; d) Reduce building heights adjacent to residential uses; and e) Direct lighting, odors, and noise away from residential uses. Despite our gratitude for these requirements,we still have a number of reservations. After a more thorough review of the RRM Presentation,we soon became convinced that the permissible height and size of the proposed new performing arts or cultural center,possibly with residential uses above,makes the Overlay much worse than the existing current land uses of the valuable,historic Main Street Library and the beautiful Main Street Park. With the unreasonably tight time constraint(twenty(20)hours) after the Final Community Workshop from 7:00 to 9:00 PM on December 4,2008, we were not able to reach all of our conclusions or voice all of our concerns by the deadline of 5:00 PM on December 5, 2008 for comments on the City's Notice of Preparation for the EIR. Such an unreasonably tight time constraint calls into question the procedural integrity of this portion of the public review. Jason Machado January 22,2009 Page 10 of 12 On November 19, 2008,the City also held an EIR Scoping Meeting (the"Scoping Meeting"),attended by roughly thirty(30) concerned citizens. As another apparent irregularity in the public review process to date, the City did not reveal the most important specifics of its ideas for the Overlay at the Scoping Meeting. The most important specifics for the Overlay were not disclosed to City residents until the Final Community Workshop,the fourth of four(4)such meetings,the first of which was held over a year earlier in November 2007. These specifics include the permissible height for the Overlay buildings,the suggested footprint of the proposed cultural center,and the possibility of three(3)floors of private residential development on what is currently exclusively public land. Hence,the hundreds of residents attending the four community workshops and Scoping Meeting had no meaningful opportunity to provide feedback on the Overlay's most important specifics before the creation of the Draft EIR,dated December 4,2008. This date was the same day as the Final Community Workshop. Regarding the notification of concerned citizens about the availability of the Draft EIR, and the instructions for comments on it, there has been another apparent set of errors in the process. I received mailed notices for the last three(3) community workshops on the HBDSPU and for the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, after signing up for the mailing list at the first community workshop. As you can see from the attached page ten (10) of the handout from the Scoping Meeting,the City incorrectly informed the citizens.in attendance that the Draft EIR would be available for public review in the Spring of 2009,rather than the actual date of December 4,2008, only two (2)weeks after the Scoping Meeting. Furthermore,this handout states that, by submitting his or her name and address, an attendee would receive written notice from the City when the Draft EIR becomes available for review. I signed in as attending the Scoping Meeting and provided written comments to the City during the scoping period,in addition to my being on the mailing list for the community workshops. Despite all of these diligent efforts,I did not receive written notice of the availability of the Draft EIR. As well, the City's representatives and consultants at 10 ti the Final Community Workshop did not mention the timing of the imminent release and availability of the Draft EIR,or clearly include this information in the RRM Presentation, even though the Draft EIR is dated December 4,2008,the same day as the Final Community Workshop. As well, you can see from the copy of the attached transmittal memo with the Draft EIR at the Main Street Library that there were no accompanying instructions for public comments. Similarly,the Draft EIR itself does not refer to any public comment instructions. The only place I was able to find the Draft EIR's public comment instructions was on the City's website. Given this state of the facts, it is virtually certain that other attendees of the community workshops and Scoping Meeting, and other citizens commenting on the Notice Jason Machado January 22, 2009 Page 1 I of 12 of Preparation, also did not receive any written notice about the availability of the Draft EIR or about the instructions for its public comments. For the foregoing reasons,we think the City's efforts were misleading and inadequate in announcing the availability of the Draft EIR and its instructions for public comments. The most likely impact of these failures has been to limit, rather than to encourage, meaningful public comments on the most important specifics of the Overlay and on the entire Draft EM The inadequate notifications and the City's confusing communications,in our opinion,have fatally compromised the efficacy of the Draft EIR and the solicitation of public comments on it. Going forward,make sure that I am on all mailing lists and email lists for all public notices, including alerting me as to the public comment periods and deadlines,for all of the following: a) All information regarding the IIBDSPU; b) All information regarding the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, including any official actions or determinations on the Draft EIR or the Final EIR; c) Any Draft EIR or Final EIR public hearings; d) The City Planning Commission's public hearings on the HBDSPU; e) The City Council's public hearings on the IIBDSPU; and f) Any California Coastal Commission reviews and public hearings regarding the Draft EIR or the Final EIR. As I intend to make sure other concerned residents have some lead-time to prepare for these public hearings,I need to receive my notices of public hearings at least several days before the scheduled dates. Conclusion We would welcome the chance to meet you,or any members of the Coastal Commission,City Council, or Planning Commission, at the Main Street Library and the Main Street Park to show you our concerns about any large project at these sites. With such a visit,we are confident that you will come to agree with us that, at a minimum,the City's ideas for development on the library's surrounding public park are misguided. .son Machado anuuy 22,2009 Page I2 of 12 11 In your creating of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the HBDSPU,we urge you to accept and endorse the recommendations of your many constituents as stated in the attached petition. Thank you for your support. Sincerely yours, Richardson Gray cc: California Coastal Commission Huntington Beach City Council Members Huntington Beach Planning Commission Members Friends of the Library, Huntington Beach Public Library Friends of the Children's Library, Huntington Beach Public Library Bolsa Chica Conservancy Bolsa Chica Land Trust Huntington Beach Tomorrow Board of Directors The Parks Legal Defense Fund(Opposing Central Park Senior Center) Residential Abutters of Main Street Park and Main Street Library Members of Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association i t 12 Wine, (Linda From: sandyd1158@aol.com Sent: Monday,June 22,2009 4:35 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Cultural Arts Center Dear Linda Wine, I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the Planning Commissions plans to build a Cultural .Arts Center in the downtown area. I am in support of Huntington Beach having a cultural art center, however, I believe you would receive more support from the residents if the Planning Commission would opt to build it elsewhere. The decision to build this in a residential area is not a wise one, and hopefully the Planning Commission will reconsider. I am with the understanding that this piece of land was donated specifically for the purpose of a Park and Library for Huntington Beach residents. I feel it would be not only disrespectful, but in poor taste for the planning commission to continue with their decision to build here. I hope you will consider the opinion of the Huntington Beach residents, and reconsider the location of this project. Thank you for your time_ Sandy Daniels k Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.See yours in just 2 easy steps! VWEEIDI JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington each PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: scentedhayes@socal.rr.com Sent: Monday,June 22,2009 5:09 PM To: Wine, Linda } Subject: No to construction of cultural arts center Dear Linda Wine, 1 am a resident of Huntington Beach, and would like to express my opposition to the City's plans to build a cultural arts center in the downtown residential area-Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I believe that a cultural arts center should NOT be constructed in a residential area, and that it would permanently disturb the quality of life for the residents. I feel there are better locations within the city for this type of project 1 understand that the land was donated in the early 1900's specifically for the purpose of a Park/Library for the residents to enjoy. It is my hope that the Planning Commission will take this into account, and reconsider the location for this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Denise Hayes Huntington Beach resident "LL JUN 2 2 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. r 1 Wine, Linda From: Marilyn Smith[honuhb@me.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:54 PM -To: Wine, Linda Subject: Please take action to prevent loss of Main Street's HISTORICAL Triangle Park and the Main Street HISTORICAL Library Dear Ms.Wine: I love Huntington Beach and all its historical significance and ambiance. PLEASE support us and your other concerned Huntington Beach residents in preserving Main Streets historical Triangle Park and the Main Street historical Library. There are many GOOD reasons to support finding somewhere else to put a cultural arts center. Historical Triangle Park is the City's second oldest park and is continually enjoyed by residents, visitors, adults, children, pets, and pet owners,and everyone else who appreciates a necessary GREEN OASIS amidst an ever-growing concrete landscape. The historical Main Street Library is a building with unique and priceless architecture and history. The 500 block of Main Street and Pecan Street and all the numbered streets are residential streets with concerned Huntington Beach residents wanting to maintain this neighborhood as the GREEN part of town that it currently is. There are vacant buildings and parking lots throughout the City where a cultural arts center would be better suited for placement. (Has anyone studied the financial failure of Escondido's Performing Arts Center? It is not a money maker.) We have over 3,000 signatures to date on a concerned residents' petition to SAVE THE PARK AND LIBRARY. Thank you, Ms.Wine, for your time and efforts. Please hear our sincere defense of and plea for preservation of Huntington Beach's historical Triangle Park and historical Main Street Library. ✓ery truly yours, Marilyn L. Smith 714-969-5125 501 Pecan Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Chuck Hausen [chausen@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:18 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Triangle Park Linda, I am opposed to the proposed development plans for the area known as Triangle Park that the library is in. I live at 914 Main Street and must endure unsafe traffic conditions. I have seen children hit, multiple car accidents and a general disregard for the speed limit on a residential street. My own vehicles have been hit while parked in front of my house. The proposed project will negatively impact the all who live on or near Main St and make it an unsafe neighborhood for adults and children.As I compose this email I can observe vehicles doing 40,50 mph past my house. There are other venues for this project with much less negative impact on the local residents. This new project should not be built Triangle Park is also nice to relax on a little patch of grass with a wonderful library that I have used since 1964 and if a dog wants to pee on the grass--I don't mind! Feel free to call me anytime regarding this matter, Charles E. Hausen 914 Main St. H.B. (714)955-7257 JUN 23 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEFT. 1 Wine, Linda From- stan [stan@wireacake.com] ;Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:03 PM Wine, Linda Subject: triangle park To Linda Wine, As a downtown resident of Huntington Beach I oppose the planned changes to triangle park and the library. I believe the extra congestion and traffic it will bring will greatly decrease the quality of life for the residents in the area. The surrounOing streets in the area could not possibly support the kind of traffic that is envisioned. I urge you to reconsider the location of your cultural center. Thank You, Dr. Stan Tsakoumakis 714-955-1919 EdVV F—D JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, (Linda From: lewie derigo[lewie.derigo@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:08 PM To: Wine, Linda ? Subject: Saving Triangle Park&Library We find it hard to believe the city would consider replacing our library and park with a huge art and cultural building in our resindential area,Please consider finding another location. Would you like living across the street from the proposed plan? 1Lewie and June Derigo 807 Main Street E1,13, JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Natalie Goodman [hbnat@msn.com] ent: Tuesday, June 23,2009 12:08 AM -=3 0: Wine, Linda Subject: Downtown Triangle Park Linda, I am a third generation resident to Huntington Beach. I have seen many changes to Huntington Beach over the years and the effects. Of all the ideas I have heard this one about eliminating Triangle Park I can't believe the city could possibly consider such an idea for such a small geographic area. If any private party was considering anything close to this, it would have been immediately shut down. That I know! I am the original owner of my home on 6th Street. It is a beautiful custom home that was built 11 years ago. I plan on living here forever. The library, and Triangle Park was my determining factor for choosing this particular lot. It is an area that offers a green belt area for my two children to play, talk and have space to breathe. The alley behind our home the city hasn't cleaned up and it is absolutely filthy filled with pot holes for a young child or person to fall in while walking or riding their bicycle. A front yard doesn't exist down here, but Triangle Park does and we love it! I often sit in the park and read, call a friend, play sports and card games with my family and friends. It is definitely an area where the locals enjoy just being in a peaceful area. Unless you actually live on 6th Street I don't believe anyone knows the impact of Main Street,Tuesday Night Fair, Farmers Market the Pier, Amphitheater and Parking to state a few. This town is out of control!! From Spring until Fall locals can't leave their house without losing a parking spot and taking four times the normal time to depart and arrive at their homes. My kids are scared with all the noise, drunks, end reckless driving living downtown. We have seen and heard just about everything possible. At this ;dint, maybe I should just start reporting it to the news stations what living in Huntington Beach looks like Through the eyes of the local residents. There are so many spacious areas closer to the freeways. Please don't slam another building downtown. It can't handle any more buildings and definitely not any more people roaming downtown. Sincerely, Natalie Goodman Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail&. See how. s L_ J'jN 23 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda wannummFrom: chris macdonald Oustlisted@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday,June 23, 2009 6:51 AM To: Wine, Linda Cc: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Subject: The Preservation Of The Main Street Library And Trianagle Park Hello Planning Commissioners. Since I'm Unable To Attend Your Meeting Later I Thought I Would E-Mail You Something. I Support The Preservation Of The Main Street Library And Triangle Park. This Is Much Needed For Downtown Huntington Beach To Remain In It's Present Condition.As Someone Who Is Downtown HB A Lot, I Like The Open Space There And Don't Want To See Anything Else On That Premise. Since Richardson Gray First Told Me About This, I Have Been On His Side And The HBDRA's As Well. Please Save What Little Space This City Has. It Is Important For People To Enjoy The Park And Make Use Of The Library. Sincerely, Chris MacDonald Website: httn://www.calcoasthomes.com 4 JUN 2 3 200g Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. i Wine, Linda From. Lisa Locke[4thelockes@earthlink.net] ;Sent: Monday, June 22,2009 7.07 PM rTo: Wine, Linda Subject: Main st. Library/Triangle Park Dear Linda Wine, I am a resident of Huntington Beach, and would like to express my opposition to the City's plans to build a cultural arts center in th(, downtown residential area-Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I belie€„that a cultural arts center should NOT be constructed in a residential area, and that it would permanently disturb the quality of life for the residents. I feel there are better locations within the city for this type of project. I understand that the land was donated in the early 1900's specifically for the purpose of a Park/Library for the residents to enjoy. It is my hope that the Planning Commission will take this into account, and reconsider the location for this project. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Lisa JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Dennis Merna[maserresearch@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:15 PM To: Wine, Linda _ Subject: Redevelopment of Triangle Park < Hi, If I wanted to live in LA I would probably be a fan of your redevelopment plan for Triangle Park. Since I do not want to live in LA. and like where I live—in Downtown Huntington Beach, 1 see this plan as reeking of an overdevelopment mentality. There are very few quiet spots like Triangle Park downtown where people can relax and read,without getting pushed aside by a horde of tourists. Sincerely, Dennis J. Mema President Maser Research Corporation GEC W1 E D JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPI 1 Wine, Linda From: 17 Suzanne Owens[suzanneowens@verizon.net] ",-.Sent: Monday, June 22,2009 8:19 PM -To: Wine, Linda Subject: Save Triangle Park/Main Street Library TO: Linda Wine City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Owens 309 9th Street Huntington Beach Please do not consider any change in the existing Triangle Park and Main Street Library. I believe access to the open green space of this small park,and the library services provided by this branch of the library, are essential community features to downtown Huntington Beach residents. I am against the elimination of Triangle Park because of the high population density in downtown,since nearly all single family residences are built on 25 feet wide lots,which means there are few open green spaces within walking distance for downtown residents. The elimination of this park would inevitably lead to increased congestion and would have a negative impact on the quality of life to downtown Huntington Beach residents. Certainly,the city agrees that downtown is already a high density area,and more should be done to provide additional open spaces,rather than eliminate those already in use. Triangle Park is a longtime existing landmark for downtown residents and their visitors,and it is closely linked as one of the first identifying features viewed when entering the downtown area. 1 Our Main Street Library currently provides library services within walking distance to downtown residents. The elimination of this library would necessitate driving several miles to other libraries,and would do nothing to enhance literacy to children in our community. Certainly,the city recognizes that less driving should be promoted,rather than eliminating local services and thereby requiring additional time and driving to utilize a public library. An additional concern that has been discussed among my neighbors is the cost of this proposed project. It has not been clear where:the city plans to obtain funding for this construction project. Given the overwhelming cuts to public services currently taking place throughout the state,at every level of government and the cuts to established public education programs,I am extremely disappointed that the City of Huntington Beach would even consider removing Triangle Park and our Main Street Library. I J'J' 2 3 LU" Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Bryan Haller[bhaller@prulite.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 8:50 PM To: Wine, Linda . Cc: Bryan Haller Subject: Triangle Park/Main St. Library Please pass this email on to the planning commission. Please use this email in my absence to show my support on the importance of keeping Triangle Park&Main Street Library.My family and 1 have forever gathered at the Park as a meeting landmark,entering Main St.!We have used the library as our local resource for years.We currently live around the corner and my children are a generation locals! Don't allow the grass just off the coast to disappear.Next thing you know we'll have oil rigs just past the pier and be considered an extension of Long Beach!We set the tone as you pass the Orange Curtain and enter The OC from LA... Surf City... It's our city... Let's keep it! Bryan Thanks for thinking Prudential... Bryan Haller Prudential Lighting www.prulite.com C(714) 724-9120 F(714) 969-4930 jUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: David Smith[davidsmith729@yahoo.com] y pent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:21 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: I used the old library on Main for photo shoot. Attachments: _David_Smith-Long-Low.jpg;—David—Smith-Long-Low Detail.jpg To Linda Wine, I went to Huntington Beach High back in the 60s and bought a home at 224 yth St. in 1996. One thing that has be constant is the beautiful old library on Alain. When I took a Architectural Photography class last fall I used the library for my "Long-Low" shot, two of which I am attaching. I don't think downtown Huntington needs a 40000 sq. f t. center in place of this lovely building set in it's own little park. I drive past it every day coming back from work and would miss it and would not miss the traffic that a new center would generate. Thank you. Sincerely, David A. Smith L ii= ' D JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 11' p;„y�°"yyir��'.- 1 " .*� ..,c c i i i'. r•. 'rt G 6 „� �.t � k�-- � _ „may, M �Y,�,1 .u�dY'd� y� } r r a r w WAN prt��'•„ t y .� _Y. •� y��P3':3'�{ki fP ..� 25 lr{Y,V ': +0 �j" ,.. h `k'�d 1 1 a Q !�'E�! r ,k 5 1 :^ v�}i�'rhy:*9 Tt _ r' 1 ZMi �, t ,d. 'x .r r V{,a,'x•' !.. :•.n�� I,tf �(!'1.; � �rM}. � p���ftgl, -� q � �,b J � ����.r�'��J Yi'a �r_lr�,�' :.� f �.�y i•{[Y-.�y�l��'�4r��tp •. `l .il�F b M ... tt`�e �.,:' .an •w' .r �Ar.�S¢S„ '�p' _:±- ' }^ t a ''-iwk g"'{�t`arj 4�r S.x. '• , and �➢r�.`,Y�t,Av ...,'4{'s:, '..} n�s' �,��In<,�q y� '"'�i+7 ' x:� 'y� �� ��x�:���It 3�7+ t�-�,i�i•k't,A+ '�;�. ����,�Mk-�tr r s,�" 7 ..µ :. „i a,:� ' .>r' , a ��� "'` ,:`. ` s,;{ w�H '41 t o- I ��� a ��� �r{a�'�Aa`}�her rtk��i,� ;��+�"a-��•r�+ kaV ;w;{i.'1'"yJ���� ;+: . ����� Y����1 �� � '' �5 � �� ."",n-,+ I ..ti 9.._�.+ r � jr�-A?dx�+Jp''y,"�Sn�.�f Y3�I Ya�`t•� �i ac� •?_:.5�R� 11...E r:Y�;tl��f t• 4'�R z~ i�i : � R Rr S t � 1 1 �N Y. 1 ) L^7 k.. � - y �1, � i �� r�, ,,y� a :yd..w�'s'';�2 '«:°::�� .i;,?..:, ��A .{ �f�,+...t�tx It -•k34y��,4 „���Y ��,:��._YJ +� �',�4���• ...e ?,Ti'. + �..�� ! 91 � S.�• P`,AI :r� �„ x`+kdk L'��.� yy ��G.�auFiSX��i7�2,� +3>,�'t � G,=1 FS�ypk T ':M $� a ; : pg f�.3 's�'y`Sd �f.1„31xxpJkr, .. A, : a r >.i^q},rr , { u A'�KM1u?�n„�ZA"I {� Fray b{r aw�. t+,{,,,N' .. , tr 3 '� �I t1' h -} .�:a� f5 f y'' � - A'�� ��� �A .fir. fr;�.: , 'rw t L,•y', + a'. A a � /ry,: .. �� .. .art': ;�'� '. •... .:.•:;� �y,h��2 i'A - it y"� � T �+,:s 1� r• , , .,...a t�. f 'n i i ra 5 r n}.tS>�. • :Y :t�:` .�' Ls. _... "4r 7<'r iF 2-s.! if !I. :.i}Ia`�yf{� I ...:,.-�, ..__ S r "'+ ek' f�...'! 4> it .., .Y YM`, ,X �•'t;�y ��'J'{. � E d a A�-��s ��'fit!$ ., ' .. ('�f a�**:ay d��• � t .� 1 .� 3 :. � :J,q..a r. >t�,�i •s�;h�j i�',t t r _Z �,,;_.ra !+' '.:r,�t kf ., '�'.�: :t , y"t` �`� xi :;• t�' LLY ��� '4. MJ�tJ Jar(" '!o} M1 i.A. k '� J .: . : } d_. j }.» e �;} 1k'F vy.. -1 k J J N ,L >r i 1 F I�• 6 '..J ,Jrb '���{ :.� { i'i.M 't7 '� 1�' a t 'r: 4x:: •f�tfNx r 1 :t ��-,a%y _ -. - �;': t' i.� ' .n ryy� �,/:` x' t J 4 '1, Yr �.�, f }�, .: '"�Y�{ t��4 ar}t,�+• - ,�h� t r �::� r �r e t°. y �i..�, +1 +e. a � �: ky�r.,-,r„� .:. v:y ..... ...... u. .......... ............ . ..... IN IKE `Al� Pim� IY4 jj ®A. 04,T 'J jr, FU 3:1 Ail N Wine, Linda From: Lena BIbd[Ienablixt70@hotmail_com] Sent: Tuesday,June 23, 2009 8:51 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Dear Linda, I would like to voice my opinion on the triangle park, and let you know that it should remain as it is today. I do not believe that we need to develop every inch of open space into some money making scheme for toursits when down town has been a meeting spot for people within its community. Turning down town HB into a toursit spot would devestate this town. Keep triangle park and our library for us the people of HB. Thank you for your time. Regards, Lena Blixt-Schmid Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you. U11IECEOW[E® JUN 2 3 2009 "ttumnngton Beach PLANNING DEPI 1 Wine, Linda From: John McCall Ujdlmccall c@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:01 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: city development Dear Ms. Wine, I would like to voice my opinion that we try to save the old library downtown. I have been a resident for over 50 years and have seen many changes -good and bad--in Huntington Beach. We have evolved from a sleepy little town to a bustling metropolis. But we now have many many vacant buildings and businesses all over town. City leaders try to look forward to keep us current,but some leaders just look for the present and the $$$. I feel a Cultural Center may be worthwhile, but trying to put this on the Main Street Library site is like trying to keep a Bull in a china shop. Have you or the other leaders tried to drive downtown on the weekends in summer? We know it is impossible and we try to do our shopping during the week or not even at all during the summer. We have two lane roads leading into and out of the downtown area, with streets that need to be repaired, gutters and sidewalks in disrepair, and the development division wants a 1500 seat cultural center in the middle of this? How are these people going to get in or out of this place? I can see lines of cars(hmm 1500 people leaving all at once, at least 1000 cars)backed up from the library to Adams, Indianapolis, Coast Highway, not a good idea. This center should be near a freeway--Bella Terra/Westminster Mall or on Beach Blvd. to give access to the venue. I highly doubt anyone staying at the Hilton/Hyatt would walk all that way. Remember the traffic. You will be killing HB by putting this downtown. Thank you for hearing me out! _-' .ynn McCall and Family JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. i Wine, Linda From: Arthur Coopman[art brendal4@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 200910:47 AM To: Wine, Linda Hello Linda This e-mail is in support of leaving the main st library as is. We live in the downtown area, 424 8th st. We have lived in downtown HB for more than 60 years. We are totally in favor of leaving this property as is. Please no more development downtown; we can hardly live here now do to the out of towners coming in and getting totally drunk in our beautiful Huntington Beach. Lets forget about the taxes earned; and start thinking about the people who have invested their hard earned dollars to live in our city. Thank you, Art-Brenda Coopman. PS It is very disheartening to take a walk and have to stumble through vomit and broken liquor and beer bottles, this is almost a daily experience for us! G -WED JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Marcia[mcsilverlining@earthlink.net] >Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:01 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Dear Linda, My name is Marcia Curran and I live in the 500 block of 7th St nearest to Triangle Park. I am writing to you today to express my concerns regarding the proposed development of Triangle Park. I have been a downtown resident for over 20 years. I have generally supported the redevelopment of the downtown area. I DO NOT support the building of a 4-story cultural center to replace the library and park. I have tremendous concern about this development affecting the safety and security of myself, my husband and nearby residents. I anticipate that out-of-towners may use the alley behind our home as a footpath to shorten their walk to the cultural center or to their parked cars. This may also create temptation to enter properties through back gates for the purpose of opportunistic theft. Littering and noise levels will certainly increase in the night time hours and street parking for the friends and family of residents will become even more difficult. Safety and security should be the highest priority of both the planning commission and city council as they consider any changes that are in close proximity to residential areas. Linda, the residents are the heart of the downtown area and their voices should be heard and respected. As we've seen from the recent economic chaos in our country, decisions based on the glory of"money" have had grievous results. Don't let"money" be the driving factor in this decision. Thanks you for your consideration of my concerns; _-Marcia Curran �U 23 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT S 1 Wine, Linda From: Karen McNeil [highlandmc@hotmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, June 23,200911:18 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street branch library and Triangle Park I am writing to tell you of my opposition to replacing this area with a cultural center. I grew up in the 500 block of 10th Street and this library is very important to me. I just moved back to HB after being gone since 1970 and I am very saddened by the many of the changes downtown. Many of my friends who are longtime residents here hardly ever go downtown anymore because of this. Please leave this area alone and leave something of the past here for many of us who really care about it. Sincerely, Karen McNeil (representing 3 generations of HB residents) Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out. 0;��f F-W WED— JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: cathy werblin[ccwerblin@yahoo.com] " -Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:05 PM `rTo: Wine, Linda Subject: downtown library Linda, I am a resident of downtown Huntington Beach and am strongly against the proposal to build a cultural arts center on the Main Street library parcel. While I have opposed most of the downtown redevelopment for the 1.6 years I have been a resident of the city, I have understood the city's need to bring business to the downtown area so have never actively worked against it. This proposal,however, is different in every way and it is time the residents of the city take a stand.Most of us put up with the ongoing changes downtown because we know there is a need to bring revenue to the city. This new proposal,however, affects one of the last "homey" elements remaining in the city and one of the few that actually services locals. For all the effort to bring locals to the downtown area-restaurants and shops continually offering discounts to us -it is amazing that one of the facilities that is actually there for us to use is now on the chopping block. I implore the planning commission and the city council to take the needs of the citizens into account this time and drop its plans to build a cultural arts center. A library is sacred to any city and I cannot support anything that will eliminate or reduce that service to the community. Cathy Werblin Downtown resident JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: HEATHER GROSS[hdg519@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:54 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: against cultural center Hi Linda, I won't be at the meeting tonight but want to let you know that I am against the proposed cultural center. I like the librar*j and the adjacent green area. With the Strand and Pacific City as well as all the previous building we've done over the iast several years (including the giant Hyatt),we need to keep some open spaces and town feel to Huntington Beach. Otherwise it will turn into a little cement filled city with a shoreline. J Huntington Beach Resident Ui1�L Ltd ; 4IL l JUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 t Wine, Linda From: Amy Scarfe[AScarfe@meritpm_com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:58 PM i o: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and Library Hi Linda, I am writing you to communicate my support of keeping the Triangle Park and library intact, and to let the City know that I oppose destroying the existing park/library to build the proposed cultural center. My husband and I are residents, and my husband grew up in Huntington Beach. It makes us very sad to see that most of not all of the beautiful architecture and history of the city has been destroyed in favor of ugly, cheap architecture aimed at attracting tourists, instead of considering the wishes or desires of the folks who actually call HB home. Unfortunately I cannot attend the planning commission meeting tonight, so I hope that this email can be counted with the others who are in favor of keeping our beautiful park and library. Thank you, and have a nice afternoon. Amy Scarfe,CCAM® Team Leader aadera Ranch Maintenance Corporation (LARMAC) vDaisy St. Ladera Ranch,CA 92694 (949)218-0900 x 112(phone) (949) 218-0901 (fax) ascarfe@meritpm.com i L'H JUN 23 2009 untington Beach PLANNING DEPT CONFI®ENTIALITY NOTICE This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged or confidential and/or exempt from disclosure.Any unauthorized disclosure,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the message from your system.Your assistance in maintaining the integrity of e-mail communications is appreciated. [rev1.00_032020071 1 Wine, Linda From: Joe Shaw Doeesha@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:03 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Late Communication June 23, 2009 Dear 11anning Commissioners, I remember being at one of the Downtown Specific Plan community meetings, held downtown at the Art Center. I remember a lot of things about that night. Residents spoke of concerns over parking and drunks on Main Street. One thing I do not remember is residents asking for a cultural center where the Main Street Library is. Because they didn't. I urge you to listen to the residents, their needs and their concerns when considering any new uses or plans for Downtown. Joe Shaw a jUN 2 3 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: John Acampora bdacampora@gmail.com] - — Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:18 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Planning Session, July 14th JUL 0$ 2009 Huntington Beach Linda, PLANNING DEPT: As a member of the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association, I 've had the opportunity to pensor"% l , speak with,owns of residents since the last planning session meeting. When presented with the facts, resi"A"nG: from ali- t. o=th, city offer their overwhelming support for preserving the Main Street Library at Triang�e Park. iookiag forward in sharing a summary of their comments at the meeting on July 14th in the public comments session. I also believe that there will be a significant number of residents that will want to share their own opinions about the importance of this landmark. Once again,thank you for providing the residents a forum to express their opinions on this very important issue. John Acampora XC_ c wilif itt No pool 2108 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone (714) 969-0255 LHUiltington 1(� f�}�'J`vJ Beach UNCIL OFFICE Date: JULY 13, 2009 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION JUL 13 2009 FROM: WILLIAM K. VOGT Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Recently, I wrote to you regarding the revised downtown specific plan proposal currently before you for approval. In my letter, I editorialized that the plan lacked specific solutions and was somewhat ambiguous regarding the.Staff's intentions for the area from Goldenwest to 9`h Street in front of the bluffs along PCH. With this in mind, and in order to be more proactive, I have written for your review a few of my ideas which I believe would improve the area as well as provide a solution for the parking issue confronting the City. I have attached them to the letter for your review. WILLIAM K. VOGT 2108 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach,CA 926z CE�h V r' D Phone(714)969-0255 JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach SUGGESTIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPT. RELATED TO PARKING,FEES,AND LAND USES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIIi\PLAN 1) Angled metered parking similar to Main Street along the residential streets from PCH to Palm Ave. with a setback at intersections for visibility. Residential Parking Permits would be issued for each residence/apartment along these streets equal to the number of garage spaces of the building. 2) Acquire or lease Montgomery Wards or Levitz land/parking areas and create a parking lot or parking structure with a shuttle service to and from the beach area. Provide two shuttles routes from the lot to the beach. One down Beach Blvd. and the other down Goldenwest Avenue alternating eachl5 minutes in summer months operating from 8 AM to 10 PM. This would allow for parking and shuttle fees while avoiding the traffic congestion at the beach. Stops on the Beach Blvd. Shuttle would be at all the main locations,Hyatt, Hilton, Main Street/Pier,9"'Street, 17"'Street,and Goldenwest/Dog Beach before returning to the lot via Goldenwest Avenue. The Goldenwest shuttle would mirror the Beach Blvd. Shuttle,each picking up and dropping off at the same sites. As an alternative,City owned land near the Sports Complex or Parks could be utilized as temporary parking in the summer for this service. 3) Preserve the Bluffs along PCH by reinforcing the bluff,then placing a bike trail and board walk in lieu of the service road from Goldenwest to 91h Street where it would join the existing trail along the beach. Cart type kiosk and services could then be placed.strategically below bluffs to provide products and services on summer days. It is unlikely to need any services before Memorial Day or after Labor Day Holiday. Therefore,when services are needed, as in special events,the vendors would simply roil out their food,beverage,and retail carts,this at no cost to the City. In this way all vehicular traffic would be eliminated from below the bluff, excepting police/lifeguard,and no permanent structures would be needed. 3) Bike trail and board walk below the bluff with only pedestrian traffic on the narrow trail above the bluff. This would provide the most aesthetic and practical use of the beach in this bluff area. 4) Require either a day permit or an annual use permit to use Dog Beach. Place a barrier between dog beach and public beach, or enforce the leash law on dog beach with fines for allowing dogs to run wild. These fees could be used to preserve the area as well as provide for enforcement of the rules of dog beach. WILLMAM K VOGT 2108 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Phone(714)969-0255 C Ef Date W09 JUL 0 9 2009 To: Planning Commission Huntington BeachPLANNING DEPT. Copy. City Council Members From: Bill Vogt Subtext: CengM nnnhm the revision of the Downtown Specift Plan Dis nd 7_ 1 am writing to you because of my concerns regarding the latest draft of the Downtown Specific Plan(DTSP). I find the current revision of the plan to be overwh non-specific with regard to land use for some districts within the plan. Furthermore,there are ambiguities within the plan with regard to land use dare to the provisions for unspecified"open--ended" optional uses,at the discretion of the design review board(DRRB), on this matter ofeoncern, I question both the authority granting the DRB political power over land use,as well as,whether having power over land use was the intended purpose of the DRB when it was established. As an example of this granting of power/authority,one need only review page 3 96,item 3.3.7.3 Permitted Uses, which establishes a host of uses for the beach areas by figure 3-64. It states within the text, "as well as other related uses or public facilities not specified herein,that may be allowed by approval of the design review board'. Figure 3-64 is a list of just about every use that would no1 be suitable for much of the area in question,i.e.,district?and specifically the bluff area from Goldenwest to 99'Street. Additionally, 33.7.3 allows the DRB to add other unknown but related items not specified in figure 3-64. Certainly,these examples fi m the revised plan lack specificity by any standard. Although stated in item 3.3.7.5 that tiered parking shalt be limited to figure 3-63 of district 7 (around the Pier),it does not state that a modified type of tiered parking would not be placed above and/or below the bluffs from Goldenwest to 9"Street. In feet,3-64 states ambiguously, tbat If so deemed by the DRB, parking,including tiered parldng can be placed anywhere in District 7,including the bluff area from Goldenwest to 90 Street. For this reason,I would request that the revised DTSP be more specific with regard to preserving the landscape along PCH from Goldenwest to 9"`Street. Figure 3-644 is outrageously broad in concept and is too general in scope to be inclusive of the entire area of district 7, specifically the bluffs along PCH from Goldenwest to 9 h Street i believe t>dis plan is too non-specific for a plan that by its name, Down Town Specific Plan,is intended to be. It makes good sense for the City Planners to be as specific as possible as to their intentions for this area.along PCH from Goldenwest to 9*Street during this revision of the DTSP. A vague and ambiguous DTSP especially with regard to maintenance and restoration of the bluff area along PCH from Goldenwest to 9&Street,raises many concerns and questions among the residents of HB. Concerns that the Economic Development Department,Planning Department and City Staff may have alternative plans for the bluff which are not compatible with its current use. Questions as to why the DTSP plan is vague and ambiguous as indicated in figure 3-64 and item 3.3.7.3. .I sincerely hope that you take my letter under advisement and pursue a remedy to this type of problem. I would be available to volunteer my time to help resolve an acceptable public use for this area. S' y ilham JUL 0 9 2009 --Huntington Beach KM#4W Btu JUL 0 9 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. DATE: DULY 6,2009 TO: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: CONCERNED RESIDENTS SUBJECT: REVISED DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 7 Regarding the revised Downtown Specific Plan(DTSP)for district 7,we as residents are concerned with many of the provisions with respect to the uses for the beach areas between Goldenwest Street and 0 Street On a broad sole the plan is too non-specific and grants great latitudes to the planning commission and city staffers. On one hand the DTSP,if approved as written,clears a path for those in favor of the economic development of the beach area resulting in the ultimate loss of the aesthetics of the bluff area. On the other hand this DTSP in its current draft provides no protecdon to preserve the aesthetics of the area consisting of HB's last unobstructed bluffs and beautiful coastal beaches visible from PCH. We believe that Jom Nfitchell summed it up in a song some 40 years ago when she wrote these lyrics,"don't you always seem to know,that you don't know what you got tit its gone,they paved paradise and put in a parking lot". It seems as if the city wants the residents to approve a DTSP that could result in the potential destruction of the last beautiful unobstructed coast line in Orange County,resulting in a parking lot. We appose any DTSP plan that would allow the city to have the authority to proceed along those endeavors. More specifically,figure 3-62 is simply flawed thinking. Any extension of the bluff at the level of PCH toward the ocean changes the pedestrian angle of visibility of the bead area(see revised drawing). Instead of seeing beach and surf,the pedestrian would only see open ocean waves. 3.3.7.3 Permitted Uses: gives too much power to the director of the design review board. Item 3.3.7.5 would require the destruction of the existing bluff and result in the creation of haven for transients and undesirables to congregate. Routing vehicles below the bluff would also endanger beach pedestrians and become an eye sore if one was on the beach looking back toward PCH. Regarding the District 7 Table of Permitted Uses,which is a list of uses that must only be approved by the design review board to be implemented,we totally disagree. This is an open- ended menu of facilities which belong no where near the beach area from Goldenwest to 9t` Street These items need to be clearly restricted in the DTSP, except for the bathroom facilities which have already been approved with a height from the service road of only 15 feet, the other items on this table simply do not belong. The only thing we as residents think you should be providing is maintenance of restrooms,landscape,as well as continued restoration of the existing bluff with pedestrianibike trails. Perhaps you should remove the bluffs and service road from the DTSP, i.e.,from Goldenwest to 9t'Street. If not there should be a more specific restrictive plan for this area Name Address Telgphone � 7 � sue- �� ) 11'7 z (111) 997 r 11f s/ �71y� Dsor'? 116 Pe-la 6W�) (71-41 4�- i - -,77 f . v .J.' ,.,r• ;::":'r�':r.L ggT;ji';'I%' '%i::';.*1".:u,,,..,.,� ' C , ::,.i.:t':Y:':';'::y......... ,,,.;:;.i•.is w j .y t ..'�•'i. fi 'p'1 rC V.'`Z'wri,�n'i� �' ��4�•^cy�' lr) CA 0 � /�":P 7p`yyC�. �♦,yd�f `'�1/,�{;kJ'I�r'��,j'(�a�'`�!l/; � - 15 ,�.— 'r`"'1'' `•! `.1:;)Cy •.,';F�(�n 4t�Jk;,v•,Tr"F•l•),�;"n'Tgn �AIGr� - I-ell ate%( r„,c•, �L:r r,`�c / <�v / �L> !.',> SJ+% it ,.rV""�G'!, r1.��/'`�?�•,��%�,1��, f�. •\� ^:�, .� l/•'fit J y'9l i ///, j�•,fai��✓ er�j/'r�N�•:��Y !� r� Y .W •�r. � V •� ^�+` ti r .,11 WLLLLll Ull _k.. .. ��,,..• I:umnll tmm uir mili. 1�r AJ.1 LUUU /� � f(,�j�(�(`!�'71'�'T•7�'c11'T•y1' A fJ���'✓: �e. 1 a:. ) !,*3;�. ti �rri/ �+ 'LT! ` ,,• 1017101 .�:•; ��� '�� .`�-� �mnur \• r-- .��: • .. '„ ti 'row•.me.a.•a., .:•:.,�:..,...,. .::ar+':o.;.,,:a:.;,nq-.r+r:'M1.,::•,,;,,...'. ..., rnr_ux'+.^ - '43•^)�;Sr'>:�.,,,• .1yr'�.,:Ki,d., - gI'�:dJ7.,;:'i1'Pl,y 21 SJ e+ ��'' •'At y;4'�,++sl . •:�e���,++�`•�v:r"ypY;Ne?:.�')�; ".a,:::r.°`\�y a' �, h 4 }r+ '� 5 'r:..�tj'r�r�� � {1. R n e y r �)y:r.�7��IF'?'•yF�.���ror J.� o !. .. i ... � ".;...-:✓. �.,..;r.•'� t ��. z \ � L dl'a`J`a ia.'�`i}. '� a�boDr,�Sn •NrMavStC..r+:A�ia,e � �� �k 'r�r. ` ��ii;l.,i:'i:.r';�.�;°:sr;,r"."?;'� � rr .;, • -WIN" • • ! r�i �•� ! . r • •. . . :• 1 ��.,� • ;- • r. a r. • • a - / a ;� � ` 6��1 ;��' �Y CA ml MIN n,.u•y.Ps ! � • • • � 1.T �1.ma's£ �f s - �- ? ai 'T'-r -^�'-�*'S`�y ; yc'F��„ AZI M:{p" Y Y r ���(�,.. r f � .$.41:�y �'- ',y��.w � -,'y t � ..yam _ ,. '��.u�.,r.��n•�''has ,!c Y`rir c .��a�.ti`y`�'%�. `ai'��i„�., ob '. -_✓ �'`w,y�„a��ta .(, F,iyi" Itl� ae �. ��ti R.M1 C�„��P t. ,��� !:{'X R.r '4i _ C j �`"� �".�C„=w �''�� _ � 4 � ? �Y"`�1 �esr�r' '� � Sy c c 1� ?�.e�,,,5�u-v�„✓'-� r._< :.,� N ��``�-:wf��` � .r-�,.� ". i� � � -% '.,,y�_�' Y¢� ��t `7».'`�7n=yttt !' ! m, Xi ! • -• -. rliviFWTjTrrnl • f . i � r . mol Wf.Vs / / • sxc` TF � `y t fi �9.. i lI . 1 !l • • 1= _ t o ate'. �'`�Wit` • • • - { f / './ . . • • �y�;-'y"�. 'a sx.�`�-;,_2+-.��e '� ii, '.F �r neC :.� i„e•, t s >"yh'F,�" ram: ti. -� �' y... j 'S ,f•'.'v ti f rti 'a.. i- .t . � s s ® • e � • e • � i .Basketball courts '47— Paddle board. courts r 1 • • e�c LiC� R d� e � � L9 x'P^ ,te:_ e e�6�cs�J.6�, e � °e�"�e.dcrr • �`- _... - I 'Min bicycleor jogging, :f Jae tidj^16 t' —.. Volleyball net supports s • • • r • • • . • • • ••t • • structuresbe located within or - • adjacent • paved parking or kgObr purposes other than maintenance ';a; ,'�:���o r ...se �e =e ..G.➢�._._- n : a�tl -a'c �<�:i :;� E�'• _ ,l�. ,� <Ei�B.:�,r _,t k'y�;,: �r`�Sxy4 ,s'� j �_•'�''.." ti,,s,_s�r. �. _"+J�'s ��c\-�y�•��T 5••,�47�>,v2�-�'.F+ „�.���d��a,�,�„�"+�T L`r,•h � s '�,-�`7.N'7"�j+i�'� ��° 'F`g+`"°� -yC,;• �c,> ,�x,.��,��w„��,;,�`v ti �, r p-h.,s•�,,,`= .r, j r 3 'c cl 1,�- �. ?.r=�'-`i,.�� r -r.,�-ia,'�'? ,,,,,".���.�`"�, 'Jl•".t.'fC�.'J�H 1X�•• `K '� - y �. �.SC. �/r" Y�Y'y" a>^ hJ-' f2 �i c `�'' vZ v} 1r vv � �5 r.E2v' ..1-•,"a"a�i 3�s .c `C;, 4 � Y � - `,r' a K a `w.. �--s�' c S's'e 's�'1 "-✓"�` N z— •rya � '�'�' �'''ac"._�.r z-a'",,t„�✓3. •.,r�+S ..> 'V�.a'i. 1"r < � r 3 y 4 t�� .�'�.� ��3 � �i-.C2,,, x- ". �p�.y..� fir' i7 � � ''a,•`"�,*,.,t•'`,,��,yl`^`" 3��-�'. s s� ��� r,t, �;�a.���^.G 5. 'Nr- z w'. x ;�,F ti� k�_ "„o.. "'� , ky, F c xK+'Fes.- ;°����• �....'S,s �h.-�.�'ti'�?'���� �g. m y .F•G+, s'.43�,.-ry Sw - � �_. G, .3 .� s,5 r�r4 v�- -,x �� �,,, 1��""�s�.� �:Nc`�. 11 •-•b�� ,;� ,..�r "'."+-'r' •z. .r _.o' Y+ z� �a� - � „? �r`k�K`5��,x'4 � ��S Y' ,✓� � ��".c,�S � t<• � 3 C � - ,+.Y •y - :^„'.t�-..''.s •ir +CY 'p' 'ti ,� .,- � - rK�Z..y rJ �� e" h v ..�"„yam,..`�` .��,• s `-� ,�;? ✓ n ti. »�y't�'�,�,tkl,j��0�t�f�3".�y.F,� .A�4 c`5�'t. f�r.�,�A{ ,C ;[ ..�, .,., ..f�`����-u.�.�`"1s`s R��;' Wine, Linda From: photography-solutions [photography.solutions@gmail_com] I� Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9.06 AM J 1f� ', { E V To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Steet Library JUL 10 2009 Hello Linda, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. What wonderful community Huntington Park is. I'm a semi-retired professional photographer. On the 4th of July, I took my camera to the parade—thinking 1'd grab a few shots. I picked a spot by Lake Park and, at the end of the day, had taken over 1,700 photographs! In the process, I met many new friends and neighbors, and have emailed many photos to them. It was a heart-warming experience. Five years ago, my wife and I moved to Huntington Beach, after 15 years in San Juan Capistrano (it was just"too far" from the beach). Today,we can walk to the pier in just a few minutes. One of the places that we go past, nearly every day, is the Main Street Library and it's beautiful little Triangle Park_ It's the only'patch of grass' between 6th Street and the Pier Plaza. 1 was alarmed, recently, to find that there may be plans to destroy that old library and the park. My first couple of years in town, I didn't worry too much about local politics—I just didn't know that much about it. After five years, I have more knowledge, more interest, and more motivation to use my vote. I will be watching the Commission and Council as they address this issue. Linda, please pass,to the Commission, my concerns and desire to protect the Main Street Library and Triangle Park from redevelopment. Thank you, so much, Paul Robison Tips&Techniques for Photographers from Beginner to Pro. Even some videos. www.photography-solutions.com i Wine, Linda From: STEVE SPENKER[ocelectricss@msn.com] Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 9:16 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: save the library JUL 10 Z009 Huntington Beech PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Wine, I have been a resident of HB for 30 years. I have seen this city transform into an amazing place to live. I am proud to raise my family here and hope my sons raise their families here as well. I am proud of the transformation our city has made into this family oriented community. However, I think we can go too far. The downtown area invokes a feeling of community past and present as it stands. Any further removal of the past will just turn our downtown into any cookie cutter strip mall you might see inland. We have already been bumped off Surfer's Top 10 Surfing Cities as it is. I wholeheartedly support the Mayor's mission to go green in the City...I am a supporter. I just don't support this move to remove what should be a Historical Landmark. Thank you for your time, Paula Spenker Resident, Mother, Elementary School Teacher [A- NAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me 1 Wine, Linda From., valaurie ventamiglia [valauriev@yahoo.corn] U` AVE Q Sent. Friday, July 10, 2009 11:31 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and HB Library JUL 10 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Enough is enough! Where as we invite visitors, We still have to Live here! Let's please rememBer Mat ana Jo get so caught up on More Revenue! We seem to be doing nicely, please don't rape our home environment for more revenue at the cost of us who live here! XXXXOOO Valaurie Wine, Linda From: joe motis Doemotis@gmail.com] l' ,I��1/7(�D Sent: Friday,July 10, 2009122 PM U ll [ 11 �f I To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 10 2009 Huntington Beach Greetings Linda, PLANNING DEPT. AS a property owner in HB and a resident for 27 years I have seen a lot of change for good and for bad in 1113. The ides for a. "Cultural Center "on a park has to epitomise bad. Commercial development on a park site. is :not about c:atue, it is about money.To put this ill concieved idea which stinks of money absoulutely nothing to do with culture to be made in the middle of our densely populated area(514 7th st for me) would turn our neighborhoods into the 4th of July year round. How about relocating it to Beach Blvd? Lots of car lots available for cheap, I would wager. Thanks for your time, Joe Mobs i Wine, Linda From: Mark Leeson mleeson thematlock rou comif u' 1 ED Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:48 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 10 2009 Huntington Beach Hello Ms. Wine: t PLANNING DEPT. After attending the planning commission meeting a couple of weeks ago I wanted to reaffirm my opposition to the development proposed for Triangle Park. Clearly, there is not a burning desire amongst HB residents for a cultural center. Most, I suspect,do not care much either way as they do not perceive the development affecting there. I also suspect that most of the ardent supporters see a financial benefit or equivalent for themselves in this project. The one thing I am absolutely sure of though, is that if this development was being proposed for a location across the street from their house,that every single member of the planning commission and city council would be against it. Thank you for your consideration. Mark Leeson 515 Pecan Ave i Wine, Linda From: Herbert M. Niles[hniles nilesrecruitin com ` ` 1'' 3 t / Sent: Saturday,July 11, 2009 9:27 AM 9 , ��`"�' k l�Il D To: Wine, Linda Subject: Cultural Arts Center JUL 1 v 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms Wine, PLANNING DEPL It is our understanding that your planning commission is giving serious consideration to demolising the Main Street library to make way for a Cultural Arts Center in Triangle Park. We don't understand that and are vehemently opposed to such a development in that space for several reasons. 1.Traffic and parking downtown are already problematic; how can we handle more cars? 2.The library is a little gem which should be brought to current standards and continue to be used by downtown residents. 3.The park offers a tranquil space in the downtown area and enhances the environment(HB Green). 4.There is already an Arts Center right across the street. S.The Central Library provides for the arts as well. While we don't reside in the immediate adjacent area,we do frequent the neighboring businesses; we bank at First Bank, shop at Montgomery Jewelery,use the tanning salon and eat at local restaurants.These businesses,along with the nearby park, create a tranquil, "small town"feel that speak to the quality of life one seeks in HB. That would be lost with the proposed contruction of a three story building. It seems to us that if there is indeed a need for the proposed cultural arts center,alternative sites are possible.We would think some of the Pacific City space could be utilized and it would be conveniently located between the hotels. Another idea would be to expand the central library to accomodate additional faciltues.Goldenwest would offer more traffic flow than downtown. To quote the HB website..."The Huntington Beach Art Center and the Huntington Beach Playhouse provide a wide variety of fine arts, and the excellent library system and numerous museums provide a strong cultural foundation." That sounds just fine to us. Sincerely, Karen/Herb Niles NEW! Niles+Associates is now offering Resume Writing Services.Visit http://nilesrecruiting.com/resume service.html to learn more. Herbert M.Niles Niles+Associates, Inc. 714.536.3224 hniles@nilesrecruiting.com www.nilesrecruiting.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/wwwlinkedinherbniles 1 Wine, Linda From: shelcleo@aol.com Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:13 PM To: Wine, Linda ' �a i1i - !__,t! L Subject: Triangle Park Attachments: Letter to City Council re Triangle Park.pdf JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Sorry,the subject line was incorrect so I am resending. PLANNING DEPT. Regards, kathy -----Original Message----- From: shelcleo@aol.com To: Linda.Wine@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sat,Jul 11,2009 4:10 pm Subject: kim@e-mailcom.com Dear Ms. Wine: Please find letter attached regarding the proposed Triangle Park project_ I would like this letter to be put in as part of the file-AGAINST the project. Thank you. Regards, Kathy O'Connor-Phelps An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! An Excellent Credit Score is 750.See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! July 11, 2009 �r .. I�.;",0 V L 0 JUL 13 2009 City of Huntington Beach Huntington t3each Attn: Mayor&City Council Members PLANNING DEPT. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Bohr&City Council Members: I moved to Huntington Beach almost thirteen years ago. I fell in love with this City back in 1994 when I came to visit a family member. Coming from a small town of 13,000 people, I loved the fact that HB had a small town feel even though back east this would be considered a huge city. I decided that I wanted to become involved in the City in some way so I applied for an open position on the Huntington Beach Design Review Board and was voted in. I take pride in the fact that I am a voice and a vote in projects all over this great city whether something small like a sign on Main Street to bigger projects like the mixed use project yet to be built on the corner of PCH & 7"' Street or the controversial Brethren School project. I consider myself pro-business and pro-development. My background has included working for a commercial retail developer in their entitlements department and also in telecommunications. Nothing is better for a city than new development to create new jobs,revenue,etc. I DO NOT however support the plan to build at Triangle Park. My husband and I have been in the process to buy a residence right next to this small park. One of the reasons we chose that area is because of the quietness of the park and library and the fact that we would be close to the excitement of Main Street, but just north enough to get away from it all. How can City Council be supportive of an idea for yet another mixed-use/ cultural type project when others in the city are either partly empty or have yet to be built? Please listen to the residents of downtown who know their neighborhood better than anyone else. Mr. Mayor, what you consider only a place for us to take our dogs to pee on is so much more than that. Sincerely Kathy O'Connor-Phelps Michael Phelps t � Wine, Linda 1 �- From: lewie derigo[lewie.derigo@gmaii.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 8-.39 PM JUL 13 2009 To: Wine, Linda Subject: Library&Triangle Park&Its proposed removal- Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Hi Linda,Just a note to let you know how strongly we feel about this subject.I was born at 515 Pecan(was sixth st.) in 1929 I grew up in that area and spent many hrs.&days playing in Triangle park which at that time was A PARK,in 1939 the city chose to build new afire station on the PARK property,at the corner of then fifth & Pecan now sixth st.,The library was later built and the fire station was demolished& moved to Lake street, I started my career in the fire service at the station in triangle park.There have been so many important and historic buildings demolished ,I think it is time to think about saving some of these treasures, it is very important that we keep as many parks& significant buildings that we can,to preserve this unique residential area.We still live in the neighborhood on main st. and are very much opposed to removing the library & PARK for a project that will mostly benefit tourists, create huge traffic and parking problems and decrease the quality of life and property values of LOCAL residents .WHO DO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WORK FOR ??????? Thank you. Lewie&June Derigo 807 main st. i Wine, Linda From: Ruthe Gorman [ruthe417@g mail.com] L U U Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:49 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: kim@e-mailcom.com; richardson.gray@yahoo.com JUL 13 2009 Subject: TRIANGLE PARK/MAIN STREET LIBRARY Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. I have already written you an e-mail expressing my belief that the park and library should not be destroyed. However,I just want to go on record one more time that I strongly oppose a huge multi-story cultural center on this site. Such a facility does not belong in the heart of a residential area and would have an extremely negative effect on our quality of life for many reasons, including the increased traffic that would be generated. I lave on Main Street and today as I sat on my front porch and watched bumper to bumper traffic stream by in both directions I thought about how impossible it would be to handle additional traffic on our two-lane streets if the cultural center is built. I once again urge the Planning Commission to take into consideration the valid concerns of residents about what a mistake it would be to proceed with the cultural center project. Ruthe Gorman 726 Main Street Huntington Beach i Wine, Linda From: Holly Adams[h_c_adams@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:24 PM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: SAVE TRIANGLE PARK AND THE MAIN STREET LIBRARY Huntington Beach Dear Planning commission Members, PLANNING DEPT. As a 7-year resident of downtown Huntington Beach I urge you to vote against the proposed plan to demolish Triangle Park and the Main street Library and replace it with a 'cultural arts district." Downtown residents should not have to sacrifice their quality of life because many of the city leaders can only see dollar signs. Huntington Beach already has a large number of tourists including regular, year-roud visitors from the greater Los Angeles and orange County areas. Two major development projects, The strand and Pacific City already stand to increase traffic, congestion and noise in our beautiful , mostly quiet downtown area. Really, do we need MORE?! when does the development stop? when the city's character and charm and quality of life have been completely comrpomised? Triangle Park and the Main Street Library should remain as they are today, a nice, green, quiet respite and buffer from the shops and restaurants on Main street. The city and the residents do not need this so-called cultural arts district. city Council Members and the Mayor are e7ected officia7s, working for the residents of Huntington Beach. Please listen to your constituents and save Triangle Park and the Main street Library. Please keep the residential communities for the enjoyment of the residents and not for the tourists. sincerely, Holly C. Adams 228 Elmira Avenue Huntington Beach Wine, Linda From: Wayne Rylski [wwr@e-sbco.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:15 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Cc: 'Kim Kramer'; 'T rrfs'; 'ed' Subject: Cultural Center Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Good Morning Ms. Wine I live at 730 13th St. The back of our home is on Crest across from Farquardt Park. I know how upset my neighbors and I would be if plans for almost any change in our park dramatically altered the landscape. Please have your committee concentrate their efforts on a location that is not 50 or 60 feet from homes. I will not presume to make any suggestions. My wife Theresa (Terry Rylski) and son Edward Rylski who lives in Pier Colony @ 200 PCH both agree with me that the library and Triangle Park are as much a part of Huntington Beach as the pier. Thank you for your consideration and hard work. Wayne Rylski Schermerhorn Bros.Co. 800 932 9395 k 1 Wine, Linda ;From: Brian Kleeman [koaklee@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:17 AM JUL 13 2009 To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. We are very sorry that we will not be able to attend the meeting, as we are caring for a 91 year old mother in Whittier, tomorrow, but we have been circulating petitions and talking to everyone we know about this. We want you to know that we are with you 100% about not wanting this monstrosity to be built downtown. Brian and Nancy Kleeman Wino, Linda From JohnnyMaleMan@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:18 AM To: wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Save Triangle Park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Mello Linda, I am a resident in the 600 block of 7th. st. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the destruction of Triangle Park and the Main St. library. I think it would effect the quality of lite for the residents by in increase of traffic, (pedestrian and vehicle)in a already high density area. I would like to see the current library restored and brought up to code, and keep the city's parkland parks. Thank you... John A. Hendricks An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 1 Wine, Linda From: Dick Theil[dtheil@verizon.net] li11 lkz C-1 k Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:28 AM To: Wine,Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Huntington Pier Colony Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 represent the 130 units of Pier Colony. During this phase of development for downtown, I would like to request a you look into removing Huntington Pier Colony from the"entertainment"section of downtown. This is causing problems for those that have oversized vehicles that do not fit into our parking structure and their inability to park them outside around the complex. Until 2006 we were able to receive such parking permits until such time as it was found that we were included in the entertainment complex and linked with the commercial units of downtown. WE need the same treatment as other residents of downtown with regard to parking at metered locations. If this is not in your area of responsibility, please direct me to the appropriate person. Dick Theil President Pier Colony H®A New Beginnings Information from ESET Smart Security,version of virus signature database 4235 (20090711) The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com 1 Wine, Linda From: Nicholas-Grey@fluor.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:39 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Fw: Keep Triangle Park and Main Street Library JUL 13 2009 i-iurl:ngion Beach PLANNING DEPT. Linda, See my original E Mail below.This reiterates my feelings on the destruction of Triangle Park. Regards, Nicholas Grey Resident at the 500 block of Lake Street. Ph: 714 969 5916 949 349 2859 --Forwarded by Nicholas Grey/AV/FD/FiuorCorp on 07/13/2009 08:38 AM— Nicholas Grey To lindamine(absurfcity-Wong 06/19/2009 09:05 AM cc Subject Keep Triangle Park and Main Street Library Linda, Please reject the idea of destroying Triangle Park and Library in order to build a"Cultural Center'. The existing Park and Library is an icon of Huntington Beach's downtown area already providing a useful resource for the residents and visitors alike. Lets not cover every green space with concrete. Instead, keep the Park and refurbish the existing Library which I use very frequently. I am told the proposed 40,000 plus sq. ft.,45 ft high"Cultural Center'is intended to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors per year.This happens to be a residential area and attracting these additional visitors will stress the immediate residents even more than now with overcrowding, parking disputes, private property destruction, unruly behavior, noise and public drunkardness. If this center is needed then propose to build it in a commercial area. It is too late to recharacterize the Triangle Park area as a commercial area since, over recent years,the City has approved the building of numerous new residences in the area. If the ultimate intent was to make this a commercial area,with Cultural Center, then the city should never have approved the building of the new residences in the first place. I urge you to reject this ill thought out idea and instead of a"Cultural Center', provide something more useful for the people who live in the immediate vicinity, for a change, leaving the current Park and Library intact. Many thanks for your attention Regards, Nicholas Grey 1 Resident at the 500 block of Lake Street. Ph: 714 969 5916 949 349 2859 The . riforigation transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietazy, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon thi.a message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any crews expressed in this message are those of the individual seridei and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Wine, Linda From: Daniel Norko[dnorko@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:44 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Triangle Park Huntington Beach fir, 5y5y' }� PLANNING DEPT. g. ;� i'. YI,}Oji :'� �� .r flu.a�'�:lf' '4'{'n� rf,A). 4A, �',�� rNY,'4 sY,f+.,h'•>:. � ., ',:��'`.'+�'�' TWO, � F, , �,r�'_• r-0���r c,;(�SK1.r rF�re,.a9;_c �'to��7.`.:,{�,yt ^'W "' - N' •'C'�. bk'�t.n<5' .�1 .'.S�{Y'x'r. ..Ffx!1'. ( � " +gj•" v� 4 �t `f J;Yh Gr :? � 'd' f dv„5 .1 ,;•2 s} d. ..'f .;y:"• •,> of f `Y I gg ti f 4 t��'�r ''P `r' ewe': •'ar ed'a.'Chan o�'n m deli'vidr�e�.� 3 �� a eft s}� k g ,x �}' a .;`Z'h�sini le list vf`tiiis'titiessape zs PL�:4'SE� ..1, +� e4'•?i'r -s..�,J,r �� a Q ,�' ;+�r<^'kt t:y+`` :r',• •�:u.G;,�.W�.�,...;' �t, r"/f, ,,f ,�+, .X 7 A .J b a a, tn. ' �• ds- fi .< it a r� 5 'u8k ;tiz seis `ie4u satin ten-do-,.tliat.,'=r=ive les tti'an three:blbcks'awa" 'i''8tfi an Galin i e'r o 'we tii .� s d d � n ',h., th of' ,e/�h t ;Ct - ,• :4 ��' �V '�o end e� o'grail" des�rari�''ir:. �c' eriera4`es`b° the `ct °,�,,�� �•,,, �fl.� �... r . P � ,.g Y1e ea ,, .,�hev r, . G:^ ,t�� 1$0' y.R.�Crl.n.,: :l;��"+,+v..,:'ner ,ri>,". :,�r;,� = " t r". '-"'' 9e tS k aSc.Dpews c�tty,ab.best d:I atta absolutely;a�palled to see t)iey have,the audaoi to corisider'such a, ro'ect iri th�;ritidst of a � •+r 2?rxYf' ^ .f.�'tx':"Yr;-. ^ssr�•s.b�,.o-`�s-,,;,u.i:; >;v.,. _d: a i`. -'' u e'S,s orive^c�fm''fartiil''ono:"in':iie 'fi ors`r�`ardin this is ue`'1'.LEASE`S7 T'' I'',.gg P ! 1Y'Yr. .. ixPi .Y, Y.. .Y, g,b g g s 1 0 A`N FLJIt''I'HE1tCONSiDE1'2A'I=IONOF ' d.lyM1y la�:y}{ yJ{ .F•x13I°•{� rA ' J' >,Y .5a)ws,6k�u{'1) ➢ q r. 11 ✓2r} a � r 2 5i � e ¢Y 4 F� xr i rri'•g5 to �w y ' - rr��s3 - 'r,, wjt �f� r}` r ?,rah"}gP9hfstla } X1i a a i� r� r G r3 X k�...... �i;�^���,�.+�^.�'., .,;;*�:iSai% n;-�;,rYt••':<,�`�',.:'s"-'rNer r�,�' :_•iq?`r?a1�. .;;�;�,,,1 '.(., r�y..�'s. "vxR Sn>, „t^�'aA4;;. ,&.,;,•.nr x.'k5,p rq,✓.;; ,..1. r3.. �j?1 r 'i' '( ^k,5:5�n � ,•"f�`f Y t: J, �� aim :.y / f 1 i , �p�R f r"'y! r,'n4 ,�"w��i�'rl°,X' + }i t."tll"^+, � t'.A,r�`}1 ')•it /fi���°Y 5 4 /53t tl`�;•,`S`.h14`,,. 4,� 5 I '�;�r,�•aJv§ t��` r ~v, ���,'��, 4i`6 �`r+x"igrly,"iu',� �^ RI ^Y rr,5$ r! �' S a✓q �eYl4 ,ayi'n:••'�gLB':y, k,ur y�i'r)d{d:#i;'i:�S;S`,.iG�?,;�,';t:,n"^Y.;<....y: u:.t•w.?.,:;� .,a ,.2v'y,, - n �r5�"n ztv$4� r >' 7ix.b�>� 'r'z '(''yy, 7e'� i �pf'd'(`f'� Y��r�ip�'.y���Ar?Y±i�vl'���k:�., ����'�2v 7Y...; •:.Y. 1 .. .. x t4`r. 1I Wine, Linda From: Denise Wada [denisewada@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:25 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park Attachments: denisewada.vcf JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Linda, PLANNING DEPT. This is my plea to ask that you stop the destruction of Triangle Park and historic Main Street Library. That green patch and beautiful public building are aesthetic qualities that embrace our values. In a time of budget crisis, I am very concerned with the city council members spending taxpayer dollars to destroy intrinsic value for possible commercial development? While i understand the needs for city revenue, I seriously question the logic of putting such a site in the center of our residences. Why would the city spend money they don't have to build something that is already in our community?There is the Art Center across the street, develop that. There is the Huntington Beach and Talbert Playhouse,develop that. There is the pier amphitheater, book more venues there. We will never get that patch of green back ,what could be a stronger symbol for the development of our neighborhood than a library? Thank you, Denise 1 Wine, binds tF 11 W I C U From: Bill Rothenberg [wdroth39@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:35 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Triangle Park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Just a note to let you know that as a resident of Huntington Beach I am against any reduction in the limited park land available to our community. In particular, one that contains a historic library. Bill F od" unbem wdroti 39',Yahoo.com i Wine, Linda From: Susan Dodd [susan.dodd@juno.comj Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:05 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms.Wine, PLANNING DEPT. I am a resident of Huntington Beach and have become aware of the possibility of a development project on the site of Triangle Park and the Huntington Beach Library. It is such a travesty for the City Council and Planning Committee to even think of doing such a thing. First of all it isn't necessary. It will make the downtown a complete mess and turn away tourists. Second of all it will NOT benefit the residents of Huntington Beach who pay lots of city and property taxes, only those who attend the theater who live outside the city. When I drive past the library on my way to a Bible study in the area, I am so thrilled to see all of the mothers with their preschool children taking advantage of programs offered to our own residents and paid for by their tax money. It is so important to have a library in that area so that the children can grow up knowing how to read and loving to read. Green space is also important in that area, we don't have much left. PLEASE DON'T BUILD ON THAT SITE. PLEASE LEAVE THE RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS TO ENJOY. Best regards Susan www.shaklee.net/susandodd Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your business. http://thirdpartyoffers.iuno.com/TGL2131/fc/BLSrinsHcQZnKcgytzAurX2GDbDpuHJ7EVNSNQu9No84sZHM_SvKliiWHOvG 1 1 Wine, Linda From: Patricia Sufficool[sufficools@yahoo.comJ t1YE© Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:13 AM tJ ll To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Linda, PLANNING DEPT. I am writing to you regarding the preservation of Triangle Park and the historic Main Street Library. I wish to encourage you to save this historic building and park rather than tear it down and put in a parking lot and more commercial development. The hometown feel of the city is slowly being destroyed by the commercial development, the last thing this city needs is more bars,restaurants and people. The proposed development will negatively impact the surrounding residents and their property value will decrease. The park is one of the only green spaces left for residents to walk their dogs. I urge you to please consider the homeowners and stop this insane redevelopment plan! Sincerely, Craig and Patricia Sufficool 1 Wine, Linda From: Shannon [shannond@advantacon.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:14 AM To: Wine, Linda 7JUL 13 2009 Subject: Main Street Library Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT As a longtime resident of Huntington Beach I want to register my opposition to the destruction of I nang a ParK and historic Main Street Library. I do not favor bringing commerce any further into the residential area and I value the land use as it currently is. If anything, 1'd like to put more emphasis on using the Main Street Library so that it regains its status as an integral part of the downtown community. Regards, Shannon Davis 422 12"'Street Huntington Beach 1 Wine, Linda From: RICHARD ALVAREZ[dina11@verizon.neq Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:17 AM To: Wine, Linda iT it�L_.1, i! w' I L•? Subject: PLEASE SAVE Triangle Park&Main St. LIBRARY!!! Importance: High JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach T. Dear Linda Wine, PLANNING DEP am writing to express my view on the plans to destroy the Historic Main St. Library and Triangle Park. I do not feel we need any more tourist attractions in the downtown area so close to the residential neighborhoods. This will not only be destroying history, but also the quality of life for the residents. do not believe this Park, and what little green space we have left, should be exploited for commercial development. It would be better to restore and renovate the existing Library structure and preserve this part of history we have left in Huntington Beach, and not to destroy it. Please do not take this away from us Thank you for your consideration, and for passing this along to our City Council members. I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dina Alvarez Huntington Beach Resident Email: dina11 _verizon.net 1 Wine, Linda From: Jeff Stuart Ustuart@socal.rr_com] L Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:25 AM `� V To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and historic Main Street Library_ JUL 13 2009 Huntington!Beach Jeff here, PLANNING DEPT. am the 4th generation of Huntington Beach and still live in the family house that was built in 1907. Graduated the same high school, hbhs, as my great grandmother did, aswell as all of mine family, so I know FIB pretty dam well. My f,m Uly has beers here before it was called Huntington and the idea of the destruction of Triangle Park and historic Main ;street Library is absurd. There is NO way in the world do I want to see downtown HB and all the tourists in my backyard. I am tired of the was it is now w/all the bars and the drunks who leave them at 2 am,walking down the streets, making way too much noise aswell as littering and urinating on trees, etc. NO THANX J. 1 Wine, Linda From: Tsimpsonhb@aol.com , .s Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:28 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear employee; PLANNING DEPT. It is time for a lesson in government. YOU work for us. YOU do what we tell YOU to do. I know there are far more residents of the city of Huntington Beach who do not support this project. The overwhelming majority oppose it. The city council does not own this city. Developers do not own this city. Tourists do not own this city. YOU do not own this city. Huntington Beach is not for sale to the highest bidder like Kieth Bohr may think. Now, in case you still don't get it, NO on the project and STOP wasting our money even exploring or considering it. Sincerely, Tom Simpson Constituent, taxpayer, resident, VOTER An Excellent Credit Score is 750.See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 1 Wine, Linda = =-- 17 L17 From: chelsea hunt[chelseahunt@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:30 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Main Street Library Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Please do not allow our beautiful, quiet neighborhood to be destroyed by unattractive, cheap commercial businesses. In the long run, it is the historical buildings and authenticity of a city that bring people to it, not the CVS or Forever 21 on the corner. Thank you, Chelsea Hunt Windows LiveTm Hotmail@: Spread the word when you add celeb photos to your e-mails. Check it out. i Wine, Linda From: Terry Glynn[terry glynn@hotmail.com] -.-- Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:43 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 13 7009 Dear Linda, Huntiton Beach PLANNING DEPT. Please reconsider the development of Triangle Park off Main Street. If it is a matter of bringing more tourists to HB you need not worry as there will always be a draw to the town. The park as it is leaves the impression of sleepy surf town with its palm trees shuffling lazily in the afternoon breeze. You want to replace that with more concrete? Do we really need more retail space or more apartments? That will simply bring more traffic and congestion, and more tension, to our quiet town. Granted the library needs some work, but there must be a compromise to keep the park as it is. Please do not tear down the palms and remove the grass. Its a nice area where people can sit in the sun and walk their dogs. I jog through the park several times a week and I like its tranquility. Thank you Terry Glynn Huntington Beach, CA Windows Live'" SkyDriveT`": Get 25 GB of free online storage. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. 1 Wine, Linda From: Julie Flores I Rate-Highway, Inc. Uulief@ratehighway.com] D Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:43 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Main Street Library Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. As a long-time resident of Huntington Beach I want to register my opposition to the destruction o nang e historic Main Street Library. 1 do not favor bringing commerce any further into the residential area and I value the land use as it currently is. If anything, I'd like to put more emphasis on using the Main Street Library so that it regains its status as an integral part of the dovintown community. Regards, Julie Flores 609 13t"Street Huntington Beach 1 Wine, Linda From: Christina O'Brien [c.obrien002@hotmail.com] : Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 10:45 AM LQ i+ To: Wine, Linda Subject: Redevelopment Project JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms.. Wine, PLANNING DEPT. My family and I would like you and the planning commission to reconsider your position on the redeve!opnnent: of the library and the park. First of all, consider what the traffic would be like. Once you would. -,get there where would you park? And secondly, the library is a historical landmark!! We like the small town feel and want to keep it that way. Thank You, Christina O'Brien & Family HB Residents Windows Live TM: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. 1 Wine, Linda From: RICHARD ONO[RONO@SOCAL.RR.COM] - Sent: Monday,July 13, 200910:54 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 3 2009 Subject: Triangle Park-Main St Huntington Beach Huntington Beach PLANNING DEFT. Dear Linda Wine, As a homeowner in Huntington Beach I oppose the development of Triangle part into a Cultural Center. T. Richard Ono 1 Wine, Linda From: Terry L. Crowther[trowther@earthlink.net] �t, - Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:10 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Save Main Street Library and Triangle Park JUL 13 2009 bear Linda Wine, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Please make the following comments part of the public record: As I see it,our City leaders should make a success of what they have already started downtown. As I visit downtown I see lots of activity on Main St. from PCH to where the restaurants and bars end, but as I go East I see a major reduction in activity including struggling businesses and a major parcel of land that has been in the process of development for years.As I go West,I see a newly completed development with a hotel,shops,and few people. So wouldn't it be a better use of time, money and energy to make these existing developments successful instead of destroying more of what Huntington Beach was and could be? How much more of Huntington Beach's"Surf City"character and quality of life will be destroyed in pursuit of a vision of high-rise buildings along the coast of what used to be a place for working HB families to come and relax and enjoy the ocean? Triangle Park and the Main Street Library should remain a transition element and be t irned into a one of the historic jewels of"Surf City"and not become another unsuccessful redevelopment. Terry L.Crowther 949-422-0476 Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus,version of virus signature database 4239 (20090713) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com i Wine, Linda , From: Linda Light[Idlight10@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:32 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Triangle Park Huntington Beech PLANNING DEPT. Linda, I have attended several of the meetings held by the group that is trying to protect the Main Library and Triangle Park from destruction in the name of tourism but totally against the interests of the residents of Huntington Beach. If this was a city where no one had to live and work (and drive!), your grand plans might be just fine, but those of us who have enjoyed living what used to be a high quality of life in Huntington Beach are already pretty sick of the vastly increased traffic and excessive drinking and partying downtown in recent years. More and more of us residents are feeling under siege by the interest groups represented by developers and the "public servants" in the Huntington Beach government who, in truth, actually do not serve the public, but rather those business interests (and themselves). Do the city officials really want to be seen as the enemy, the "bad guys"? Anyone who thinks a library is dispensible, especially in this day and age where school libraries are being cut back and even closed, has no business being on our City Council. Ditto anyone who thinks every square inch of open space must produce a monetary gain and is fair game for"development"., they do not have the interests of the residents in mind. But anything that is bad for the residents is bad for the city too, no matter how much revenue it brings in. If it's revenue you want without any regard for the well being of the city and its residents, you might as well being selling cocaine. Think a little more creatively about how to increase revenues for the city's coffers—there are plenty of great ideas out there, they are just not being promoted by the said interest groups. We've had far too many individuals on our City Council and Planning Commission, and probably in other departments of the city, who are using their positions for their own political and financial gain, not because they have any intention of actually doing public service. I've heard Huntington Beach called "New Jersey West" because of this type of sleaze. Do you really want our town to have such a reputation? Enough already. Linda Light Huntington Beach Wine, Linda From: Marilyn Smith [honuhb@me.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:15 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: OUR HOME, OUR HISTORY, OUR ENVIRONMENT—PLEASE REPRESENT US AND OUR SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIATED CONCERNS ABOUT LOSING TRIANGLE PARK&MAIN STREET LIBRARY Dear Ms.Wine, This communication is intended to be directed to the City of Huntington Beach representatives, administrators, and all others with input and/or authority regarding the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. After review of the DTSP, including changes to the DTSP discussed at the June 23 Study Session and Planning Commission Meeting, and after hearing comments by Commissioners, Consultants, and Residents; it appears that the City of Huntington Beach is at a critical point in its decision making and prioritization. Which matters more: The possibility of money to be made OR Threatening the quality of life for residents The destruction of the City's second oldest park The destruction of the City's oldest library The destruction of the City's significant historical sites The continuation of demolishing, destroying, and developing, regardless of consequence to residents Less GREEN SPACE in a City already sadly in a disgraceful minority for U-S_ cities-sacrificing green space Another alcohol-serving establishment in a downtown that is already suffering from major negative consequences of too many bars Increasing traffic in already trafficed residential streets Increasing congestion and chaos in already over-congested neighborhoods Please remove the cultural arts overlay from the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. Please make residents, green space, historical sites, and sane actions priorities for the"City of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Marilyn and Roger Smith JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: cindileamac@yahoo.com ' ��=� ;�%� \Vl`IED Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:31 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Save Triangle Park and HB Library JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms. Wine, PLANNING DEPT. I am a resident of Huntington Beach whose address is 514 7th Street in a 1912 beach bungalow(one of the few left standing)in the home of my grandparents and my mother, my Great Aunt& Great Uncle and numerous cousins. Both my mother and father graduated from Huntington Beach High School along with my numerous Aunts and Uncles from both sides of my family—my mother and my father, who also lived and grew up in this wonderful community. On behalf of my mother(75)and my father(81),myself and my sons,Russ(25)and Andy(22) and who are also HB residents.My son Andrew is a Huntington Beach City Lifeguard and has been since he was 16 years old. My father Alfred Kerr, " Tiny" Kerr was also a HB City Lifeguard and star football player in high school back in the day and Huntington Beach was a working man's town and not a "resort" destination. My mother and father have requested me to convey their feelings as they are not computer literate and have discussed this issue many times with me over the past several weeks and have encouraged me to write to you and have requested me to attend the upcoming planning commision meetings. Our family loves this town, we live and work here. Collectively we are aghast and repelled over the plan to destroy the only small park left in residential down town proper along with the apparant plans to destroy our nieghborhood park and historic library. My mother and father fondly remember all the fun they had playing tag football and having picnics there. We are all in agreement that the library is an extremely important asset to the residents and the community in general as is the small patch of green park left and should be protected at all costs. We are in favor of the renovation of the library,bringing it up to current codes, as we are also in favor of maintaining and beautifying the park. A"cultural center" and meeting space of the magnitutude that is now being discussed and proposed is counterproductive to the residential neighborhood and would reek havoc on the already congested traffic flow, of the neigborhood and the parking in and around the neighborhood of Palm, Acacia,Pecan, 6th and 7th streets and further streets beyond in our residential neighborhood. The priority of the City planners and council should be the quality of life of the residents,who pay plenty of taxes to live here..... not the lure of visitors and tourists to the neighborhoods. We already share our beautiful beaches with millions of visitors and HB has erected Hotels to accomodate the people who come here. The Hyatt boasts of the only "Cenvention Center" type facility located on the Beach in California and the Hilton also have large meeting rooms available to accomadate such meetings and events. A"cultural center" with a theater already exists in the city---have you been to the HBCentral Library?and has parking adljacent to it to accommodate the visitors and events there. There are: m,Ere appropriate places to build this type of building proposed in the city of Huntington Beach and it is not it,, a ve;sidential area. Please count this as 5 HB residents in favor of saving Triangle Park and restoring and renovating the Historic Library which rests on that land. Thank.,you. Peace, Cindi Mackie Wine, Linda From: Jason Email Dasonlee ala ahoo.com U j . , r3 '� 1`�' (� U g �@y l (l �1��.� Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:31 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: destruction JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. speak for myself and another 50 or so of friends and family from Huntington beach. we are not pleased with the plans to tear down the library and utilize park areas for commercial developement.we are tired of all the tourists that come c ornm;t crime in our streets and changing our library and turning it into another tourist attraction so close to the residential part of town. generating revenue is important for the city but wasting funds on tearing things down and rebuilingthem is a waste of money and these sites should be renovated. Please hear your community. Please listen_ Do you even live here in hb? Sent from my iPhone 1 Wine, Linda From, rcarlson@uci.edu ' Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:45 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: kim@e-mailcom.com Subject: library JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners: PLANNING DEFT. This is Ron Carlson. I live at 505 8th Street in Huntington_Beach which is two short blocks to the library. I use the library every week, and 1 find it a valuable place for my reading and writing. It is a unique place in our town. I direct the Graduate Program in Writing at UC Irvine and I'm the author of eleven books. The sweet town of Huntington Beach in the last few years has become a sort of theme park for tourists, and it is a lot of fun, but there comes a time when a planning commission must make real measurements of what a town should be. Do we want it to be a noisy, crowded mecca for cars and tourists or do we want to try to achieve a civilized balance? I understand that the library and Triangle park may seem an anachronism to those among you who look only at the bottom line. But you have a chance now to do something you will never have the chance to do again: retain this civilizing influence. The library serves so many of the functions of our community which are simply unmet by the relentless array of t shirt shops and bars. I am recommending that you do the most unusual thing you could: nothing. Leave this beautiful building and its gracious grounds alone. There is no real gain in creating new office or commercial or parking space. In forty years,your grandchildren will be amazed at your wisdom and courage. Please contact me if I can be of any further help. Your neighbor, Ron Carlson 1 Wine, Linda _ k-pv From: Ted and Carol Szuba[szubaszuba@mac.com] PfAWIL D Sent. Monday, July 13, 2009 12:59 PM To. Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach We live at 805 Main Street. Please leave Triangle Park as it is. We love to walk by and a Tha you the Szubas! 1 Wine, Linda From: Jamie Russell amierusselll verizon.net LU Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:06 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and historic Main Street Library JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Dear Linda, We strongly oppose the destruction of Triangle Park and historic Main Street Library. We don't want any more tourists attractions this close to the residential neighborhoods&we don't want the City Council to use parkl,Inds for commercial development. Thank you, Jamie & Rickey Russell i Wine, Linda ''11 t�1= u J L�i From: Rob Dubar[rob@merch-co.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:02 PM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: a concerned resident of HB Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Hey Linda, I hope this email finds you well. 1 am writing you today just to voice my concerns as to what I see happening in the Downtown HB area. all the new business construction has brought in way more traffic and people than ever and now living downtown has gone from a nice community of local people to a tourist destination with more trash on the streets, rude outsiders that just don't care about the places they visit_ It seems that none of them have any respect for the locals that live in the area. I have had my mail stolen, my fence broke, my animals harassed, my cars damaged and it doesn't seem to be getting better. I have actually sat on my front porch and watched a group of about 6 dump their trash on my property this was just last weekend. I addressed it with them and they replied what can I do about it. There really isn't much, I have called the police in the past for a different group of people breaking my fence and nothing came of it. So if I call the police they get a warning or a small fine(maybe)for littering, then my house or my property really gets messed with and I am still left with the damage. No thanks it just doesn't seem worth it and I don't want to live in a community where I have to worry about the police either. I just want to live and let live. I moved to HB from a neighboring city about 20 years ago, I own several properties in the DTHB area and have watched how the community is loosing it's old feel and it seems that no one at the City seems to care. I have a feeling it is because it doesn't effect them directly. Much like the New proposed library it is a bad idea and based on what I have seen and heard about this project and past projects they have almost never been good for the people that actually live here. Well I will be voting again and will be voting for the people that want the same things I want and I'think we are in the majority. So please take this letter for what it is a concerned citizen who will fight for what he loves. thank you for your time. Rob Dubar Cardboard Robot The Merchandise Company MerchCo Online 1600 East 33rd street Long Beach, CA 90807 Phone: (562)989-3688 Fax: (562)989-3699 SKYPE Name: rob.dubar CBR email: rob(c_cardboardrobot.com CBR website: www_cardboardrobot.com CBR myspace:www.myspace_com/cardboardrobot TMC website: www.themerchandisecompany_com TMC myspace: www.myspace.com/themerchandisecompany i Wine, Linda From: Roslansky Jane Brosiansky@snyder-langston.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:04 PM JUL 13 Z009 To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library and Triangle Park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. As a resident near downtown, (I live off Lake Street) I was concerned about the development of a Cultural Arts Center being proposed in the location of the Main Street Library and Triangle Park. I am not opposed to the development of the Cultural Arts Center what I am opposed to is the proposed location. It seems as if a project of this size should have been incorporated in the Pacific City development site or some other site that would be a draw to tourists but away from;=t residential neighborhood. I am also opposed to taking a park and turning it into a commercial development and the demolition of a historical cultural building rather then the restoration/renovation of it. Our City has lost so much historical properties in the name of redevelopment it seems as if we would like to keep the few we have left to us. We are fortunate to have a City that many people would like to visit however, it should not come to the expense of our residents. SNYDER LANGSTON .lane Roslansky Project Manager/Business Development Associate Direct Phone/Fax 949.225.3209 Mobile 949.795.8883 iroslansky(cbsnyderlangston.com 1 Wine, Linda From: Julian Cummings[cummings@socal.rr.comJ Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:16 PM g To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Save Triangle Park and the Main Street Library Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms.Wine and fellow Planning Commissioners, I am writing to express my continued opposition to the Cultural Arts Center overlay component of the proposed update to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The proposal to demolish the historic Main Street Library building and Triangle Park (the 2nd oldest park in our city)is simply unacceptable to downtown residents such as myself. We are below widely accepted standards for support of public library facilities and per-capita open park space in Huntington Beach already, and this move would only serve to compound the problem and make downtown HB a much less attractive residential community. Furthermore,the proposed Cultural Arts Center appears to be a solution in search of a problem,a massive development project in the heart of a residential community that no one here seems to want or need. I have been involved with the HB Downtown Residents Association for several months now and talking with many neighbors and friends about the proposed DTSP update. In that time, I have yet to encounter a single person that actually wants to have a massive Cultural Arts Center built here. So 1 am mystified as to why the Planning Commission or the City Council would even consider a project that we do not need and cannot afford. My best understanding of this is that the City is looking for ways to increase tourism in Huntington Beach and thus increase government revenues. That is a reasonable goal, and the best way to do that in my opinion is to do everything possible to improve and enhance the beach going experience. Visitors do not flock here every summer for the"cultural arts'; they come to enjoy the beautiful beach and ocean, to swim, surf, play beach volleyball, and eat and drink outdoors in the sun. So our City should be striving to enhance that experience as much as possible: keep the beaches and nearby downtown streets clean and safe for families, continue to host exciting events at the beach such as the AVID and the Surf Open and beachside concerts, and promote public awareness of the surfing culture and preservation of our beach and ocean thru venues such as the International Surfing Museum downtown. Maintaining a clean, safe, and family-oriented environment throughout the downtown area and our beach facilities will not only benefit the local residents such as myself who own property and pay taxes here every day, but it will also do more to increase tourism and visitors to Huntington Beach than any Cultural Arts Center ever could. There is simply no need to construct a massive new"tourist attraction"that will be out of place here and lacking in the necessary infrastructure when we already have the best possible natural tourist attraction available—the beach! In summary, 1 would ask that the Planning Commission revise the draft update to the DTSP and completely remove the Cultural Arts Overlay section. In its place, I would propose a much less expensive project to renovate the Main Street Library building and modestly increase its usable space by perhaps adding a second level or a rooftop reading terrace. The library enjoys plenty of use by the nearby local residents, and the building itself has architectural significance, but it is in need of some internal upgrades. Also, a modest increase in support for upkeep of Triangle Park itself would be widely welcomed by the residents of this community, even if it required fees of some sort to be levied. I believe that residents are much more willing to pay their fair share in taxes and fees for adequate City services than they are willing to sell off large chunks of their community lands for wrong-headed development schemes that will decimate local property values. I know 1 am. Sincerely yours, Julian C. Cummings 1 Wine, Linda From: Karyn E. Bayley[KarynQTnurse@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:18 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: HB Main Street Library JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Ms Wine: PLANNING DEPT. I'm writing this to you as a concerned resident of Huntington Beach that frequents the Main Street Library with my now 7 yr old son.We've been checking out books and have spent many evenings"reading" inside since we moved to HB in November,2004. Having grown up in Orange County and as a Calif native...our small town"local" library is one of my favorite places to frequent with my son. In fact, its a place he"asks"to go to on a weekly basis. Do we truly need another nail salon or Starbucks here on Main Street? How many commercial bldgs do we want to squeeze into such a tight area?There's something to be said for what our"small" local library has to offer...please take into consideration what"we"as Residents want. Thank you,for your time. Sincerely, Karen E. Bayley 7525 Quiet Cove Circle Huntington Beach 92648 1 Wine, Linda From: Rosemary Robinson [srobinson9@socal.rr.com] v! 41 �`l E Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 1:40 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: jeff Stuart JUL 13 2009 Subject: Main Street Library&Triangle Park. Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Hi Linda: I love it when these people get up at the City Council meetings and state that they have lived in H.B_ for 15 years -etc. etc. --well I have lived here all my life, I am now 81 years young. Own property on 7th & Pecan which belonged to my Parents. I think it is ridiculous that this City wants to ruin one of the best areas in town by turning it into another Tourist Attraction. They tore down everything else we had that should have been restored-such as the Memorial Hall on bth Street, the Beautiful Brick Library, the Surf Theater, the Golden Bear, etc. etc. Would it burden this city to much to leave well enough alone? The residents in this area would rather restore and renovate historic cultural buildings such as the library rather than destroying it. It's probably the only one left. I think we have enough Bars on Main Street. Thank you Rosemary McCormick Robinson 1 Wine, Linda From: bob Collins[doctorbc@hotmail.com �' Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:24 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: downtown library&park JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT Hello Linda, I understand that considerations are being given to the destruction and replacement of the downtown Huntington Beach library. I moved to Huntington Beach ten years ago to enjoy a leisure retirement in a community which would allow a relaxing environment without undue crowds, sans those at the beach itself. Now the Huntington Beach council has decided that a "cultural center" would be beneficial to the community. This would do nothing more than bring more people, and vehicle traffic to the upper end of main street - a two lane road - creating tremendous congestion, not to mention the additional need for police, fire, paramedic and other - probably overtime paid - services. Costa Mesa and Cerritos both have major cultural art centers. They will both increase their advertising to help draw customers into their centers. Is Huntington Beach willing to pay for the competition and the extra services needed? Considering the current state of the economy, where is the money going to come from? California itself is in enough trouble financially. Are the citizens of Huntington Beach going to suffer more once the existing library is destroyed and replaced by maybe a little used, expensive albatross? Not to mention the destruction of the only "park" in the downtown area!! Although I live three blocks away from the library and park, I use the downtown library often. It is much more convenient than the main library. I know many other people in the area do as well. Huntington Beach already has a cultural art center across the street. We don't need another one!!! I am very much opposed to the destruction and replacement of the library. The City would be much better off, financially, socially, ethically, and morally bring the current library up to current building standard and equipping the current facility with modern high speed internet services, and expanding its catalogue. Please don't fall pry to the enticements of big business by allowing this redevelopment to take place, with their well planned and presented projections, which take years to financially-recoup. We (Huntington Beach) have obstacles to overcome, like any other city, don't shackle us with more. Dr. Robert W. Collins Trustee, New Life Clinics 714 335-1115 1 Wine, Linda From: dawn melton[lakerfandawn@yahoo_com] 4 -_. :- ; Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:25 PMi�V To: Wine, Linda Subject: 7/14/09 planning commission meeting JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Hello Linda, PLANNING DEPT. I'm an HB resident. I live a few blocks from the Main Street library at the Triangle Park. I use the library all the time with my son, a student at Dwyer Middle School. I am opposed to tearing down the library. I feel that it, and the adjacent park, should be preserved and maintained. I would also like to take the time to tell you that I personally clean the street,gutters,sidewalks, landscaping and alleys near my home from all the visitors'trash. I don't create the the trash or the vomit, but I am stuck with the burden of cleaning it up, as the city fails miserably at the task. The street sweepers do not get the majority of the trash,including alcohol bottles discarded on the side walks or in the residents' landscaping. Even the neighborhood-friendly businesses,such as Jacks Surf Shop,Baskin Robbins,and the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory,create trash that ends up in front of my home. I like those stores that I just named, but it's an example that more extensive cleanup needs to come from the local business owners and from the city. My son is a Junior Lifeguard and they spend time every summer picking up the beach. Throughout the year, my husband cleans up the graffiti and the trash within a couple block radius of our home. Our family works very hard to keep our part of the downtown clean. We're not alone. Lots of residents do,and it's not right. The city makes money from the parking meters in front of my house. Perhaps this money should be allocated toward cleaning up all the visitors'trash on our street. Anyone that actually lives downtown will tell you, that the last thing we need are more crowds,litter,congestion,traffic problems,noise, etc. Please encourage changes for improved and expanded cleaning and maintenance of downtown HB,not further development to draw in more visitors. It's time that our local government remembers that there are far more homeowners and residents downtown than there are business owners. The whole downtown suffers for the city's revenue generation and business owners'efforts to create more income_ When is enough enough? Dawn Melton 206 2nd Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 Wine Linda From: James Melton Damesm@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:45 PM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: DTSP[Tuesday planning commission meeting Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms.Wine, As a downtown resident/homeowner/stakeholder, please be aware that after further investigation and research on key issues with the proposed changes to the Downtown Specific Plan, I am of the continued opinion that: • Any changes implemented should benefit the downtown residents as much or more than the local businesses. The downtown residents seem to have been consistently overlooked in recent years, in the quest to bring in even more visitors(read"revenue")to our downtown core. It seems to be a common theme in discussions with other downtown residents, that businesses have been catered to(over the residents)for far too long. Its time for the Economic Development Department, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, to remember that the residents they represent,far outnumber the downtown business owners. The residents'quality of life is directly affected by each decision concerning downtown made by the local government. The city already has a difficult time maintaining and cleaning what it has. If the city simply did a better job of maintenance, it would likely attract not only more visitors, but perhaps a more affluent class of visitors, with more disposable income. It's easy to appreciate a safe, clean, well kept beach/downtown area. • The Main Street Library should be retrofitted to meet current earthquake standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act standards, rather than tom down. Perhaps the suggestions of a rooftop reading terrace, plus fenced gardens on the grounds surrounding the library with another reading area(possibly nice enough to rent out for weddings, etc.)would be a viable alternative. The Main Street library is an asset to our community. • I applaud the efforts to keep 2nd Street zoned the same as it is presently. The previously proposed concept of zoning it the same as Main Street(!)was outrageous and inconceivable, as 2nd Street is already populated entirely of homes, except for the miniscule architect office at the corner of 2nd and Orange,and the remaining oil wells from Huntington Beach's second oil boom in the 1950's. Imagine the fight you would have on your hands if a couple homeowners discovered that someone wanted to put in a Sharkeez next door to their luxury beach homes. Thanks for your efforts on the above. Sincerely, James Melton 206 2nd Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 Wine, Linda From: clong1 [clong1@gadball.com] +f IL Sent:Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 3:40 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: HB City Library JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Please leave our existing library alone. PLANNING DEPT. Chuck Long i Wine, Linda � vc o From: LINDA BAGDASARIAN [lindabag@msn.com] Sent: Monday,July 13,2009 3:49 PM To: Wine, Linda JUL 13 2009 Subject: Save Main Street Library and Triangle Park Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT Dear Linda Wine, Please do not destruct Triangle park and the historic Main Street Library. They both are such a joy to my family and I feel have so much importance for the residents that live in this area. It seems some green and cultural spots should be appreciated and cared for in this area, especially with the abundance of commercial development. Could we please restore and renovate historic cultural buildings such as the library rather than destroy them? Thank you for reading this e-mail and giving consideration to this important subject. Sincerely, Linda Bagdasarian 603 California Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-374-8500 1 Wine, Linda From.. Scott Hagstrom [lahlah97@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:18 PM To: Wine, Linda ���Subject: Triangle Park and Huntington Beach Downtown LibraryLO ;-- [�9. lahlah97(a,earthl ink.net Please;use your considerable influence to nullify any plans to destroy Triangle Park and our iconic downtown library. We truly need to retain some of the original buildings and open areas that have made Huntingtron Beach unique and that continue to entice tourists to oar lovely city. We do not need any more of the"improvements"that have destroyed much of the essence of Huntington Beach. We who reside here appreciate the beauty of our situation and we desperately want to retain something of the past for the future_ Thank you. i Wine, Linda From: 13corporate@gmail.com on behalf of L3-Ambassador Lo g[LveSurfCity@ mail Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:34 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: susie smith Subject: Save Surf City JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Linda Wine, PLANNING DEPT. Please don't let the City Council destroy "Triangle Park" and our historic Main Street Library. We don't need or want additional tourist attractions so close to the residential neighborhoods, and we don't want the City Council to use park lands for commercial development! Let's restore and renovate our library!!!! Sincerely, Lee Love L.L. Love President L3 Associates, Inc. 419 Main Street H.B., CA 92648 "Love What You Do...Do What You Love" 714-349-7706 1 Wine, Linda From: Natalie Goodman hbnat msn.com t =it�H\ ''t 'L� Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:37 PM To: Wine, Linda ` Subject: FW: Save Triangle Park!!!!!!!M! JUL 13 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Dear Linda, Why would the city council want to change what little piece of land left at Triangle Park and Main Street Library to a monstrous cultural building? It is just not feasible with these two way streets. As a resident of downtown on 6th and Pecan this would be destructive in many ways. Currently, we have tourists swarming downtown and it is now a rowdy party town. All this current development has brought undesirable tourists and has increased our crime and violence downtown. I consider it to be unsafe for my kids and I to go out after sunset. As a resident, I am sick of all the tourists and everything they bring with them. Before long, the violence will become so bad, nobody will be in business let alone making a profit. Please consider to renovate the library and make it historic and charming just like the Worthy House. Huntington Beach High School's renovation is coming along beautifully! Save our parklands and go build your cultural building in a commercial building near the freeway. Sincerely, Natalie Goodman Windows LiveTm Hotmail®: Spread the word when you add celeb photos to your e-mails. Check it out. Windows LiveTm Hotmail®: Spread the word when you add celeb photos to your e-mails. Check it out. Wine, Linda From: Marilyn Smith [honuhb@me.coml Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4:49 PM To: Marilyn Smith Cc: Wine, Linda Subject: REVISE TRAFFICED TO OVER-BURDENED—Re: OUR HOME, OUR HISTORY, OUR ENVIRONMENT—PLEASE REPRESENT US AND OUR SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIATED CONCERNS ABOUT LOSING TRIANGLE PARK&MAIN STREET LIBRARY PLEASE REVISE THE WORD "TRAFFICED" BELOW TO BE "OVER-BURDENED." G On Jul 13, 2009,at 9:15 AM,Marilyn Smith wrote: JUL 13 2009 Dear Ms. Wine, Huntington BeamPLANNING DEPT. This communication is intended to be directed to the City of Huntington Beach representatives, administrators, and all others with input and/or authority regarding the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. After review of the DTSP, including changes to the DTSP discussed at the June 23 Study Session and Planning Commission Meeting, and after hearing comments by Commissioners,Consultants,and Residents; it appears that the City of Huntington Beach is at a critical point in its decision making and prioritization. Which matters more: The possibility of money to be made OR Threatening the quality of life for residents The destruction of the City's second oldest park The destruction of the City's oldest library The destruction of the City's significant historical sites The continuation of demolishing,destroying, and developing, regardless of consequence to residents Less GREEN SPACE in a City already sadly in a disgraceful minority for,U;S.•cities sacrificing green space Another alcohol-serving establishment in a downtown that is already suffering from major negative consequences of too many bars Increasing traffic in already over-burdened residential streets Increasing congestion and chaos in already over-congested neighborhoods Please remove the cultural arts overlay from the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. Please make residents, green space, historical sites, and sane actions priorities for the City of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Marilyn and Roger Smith i Wine, Linda From: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 4.-54 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Planning Commission Study Session—July 14th--Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP)-- Cultural Arts Overlay Dear Ms. Wine: Please make this email a part of the written public comments for the referenced Planning Commission meeting. I am Richardson Gray, and I own my home in downtown. I oppose the City's proposal to redevelop Triangle Park and Main Street Library as a cultural center. OCRegister Poll 76%-to-24% Against Cultural Center The OC Register has completed an online poll for this issue. Among 471 total votes, the poll's mandate was over three-to-one (3-to-1), 76%-to-24%, against the City's proposal for a cultural center at the park and library. Below is a copy of this poll's results,taken from the Register's website as of today. What do you think should happen to Triangle Park and the Main Street library? The city should not change the park or library. 46% The city should update the library and leave the park. _ - 30% I u ! �The city should make the area into a cultural center. 24% JUL 13 2009 Total Votes:471 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEP Cultural Center Feasibility Study Kept Secret from the Public Unfortunately, this public opposition is only half informed. The HB Marketing and Visitors Bureau has completed at least a draft of a feasibility study for the cultural center. Over the last two months,through several informal requests to the Bureau and the City, I have been unable to get this study released to the public. I made a legal request to the Bureau and the City for this document on July 7th. I am asking that the Planning Commission's further review of the DTSP be delayed if this study is not released to the public by July 17th. Downtown Ad Hoc Committee Unanimously Voted to Discourage'Tourist Attractions North of Orange At the final Downtown Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on June 29th,the following recommendation passed unanimously among the committee's six(6) Downtown BID members and nine (9)at-large members: "Encourage neighborhood-serving retail north of Orange, with a visitor or tourist orientation south of Orange." The location of a major tourist attraction, in the proposed cultural center at the park and library, completely contradicts this unanimous recommendation from downtown businesses and residents. Downtown Residents Association's Council Candidates Endorsements Criteria The Downtown Residents Association(DRA)currently has over 400 members. This group is building its membership toward a short-term goal of 1,000. The DRA's petition to preserve Triangle Park and Main Street Library presently has nearly 3,500 HB residents as signers, all collected through local volunteers. At this pace,we should have 10,000 signers by the 2010 Council elections and 20,000 signers by the 2012 Council elections. In that each signer probably will influence a few voters who have not signed, I think that a multiplier of three (3) times is a conservative assumption for the impact of our petition on the Council elections. Thus, as many as 30,000 voters should support our petition in the 2010 elections and as many as 60,000 in the 2012 elections. The OC Register poll confirms this level of support. The DRA will make Council candidates endorsements for 2010 and 2012 after the Council's vote on the DTSP. As the lead person on our petition, I will recommend that the DRA endorse only Council candidates from the Planning Commission or from the Council who meet the following test: In their votes on the DTSP, both the Council Member and the Planning Commissioner appointed by that Council Member,supported the preservation of Triangle Park and Main Street Library. Accordingly, if a Planning Commissioner votes for preservation of the park and library, but his or her appointing Council Member does not, the Planning Commissioner would not qualify for a DRA endorsement. Similarly, if a Council Member votes for preservation of the park and library,but his or her appointed Planning Commissioner does not,the Council Member would not qualify for a DRA endorsement. To repeat my recommendation,the test for DRA endorsements for Council candidates from the Planning Commission or Council should be: In their votes on the DTSP,both the Council Member and the Planning Commissioner appointed by that Council Member, supported the preservation of Triangle Park and Main Street Library. Accordingly, if a Planning Commissioner votes for preservation of the park and library, but his or her appointing Council Member does not,the Planning Commissioner would not qualify for a DRA endorsement. Similarly, if a Council Member votes for preservation of the park and library,but his or her appointed Planning Commissioner does not,the Council Member would not qualify for a DRA endorsement. Thank you for your consideration and support. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.graygyahoo.com G/ Wine, Linda From: Chuck Hausen [chausen@socal.rr.com] �C� Sent: Monday,July 13, 2009 5:49 PM , U ll j �, (� EI To: Wine, Linda Cc: Kim Kramer Subject: Library and Park JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach I am opposed to the destruction of the existing library and Triangle Park. PLANNING DEPT Calling the proposed new center an"anchor'for the downtown is far from what it will be. It is an extension of tourism acid drunkeness into a residential/family neighborhood.We downtown residents need a BUFFER between the bars and the residents. Existing venues within Huntington Beach are available to serve the"cultural arts" needs and have much less impact on an already burdened downtown infrastructure. Closed supermarket? Multi-story bank building? How about Golden West College and some of the lecture halls. Certainly the college could use some additional revenue? What about the theatres at Main and PCH?Underground parking is already built, bars and restaurants are adjacent and the City of H.B. has already spent a small fortune on this location There are better ways to accomplish the same objective Restore the library where it is and leave the park alone. Chuck Hausen 914 Main St (714-955-7257 1 Wine, Linda From: Bob Cooke [bcooke001 @socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, July 13,2009 6:10 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park and Library JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Linda_ Just a note to say that I do appreciate your personal time delegated to the City of Huntington Beach planning committee. I do hope, that you have an open mind during the evaluation process of developing Triangle Park for commercial use. I support a eriovating the current Library and keeping the park as is. Thank you Bob 41e Townsquare Unit 108 HB, CA 92648 1 Wine, Linda From: mee115[mee115@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:23 PM ��tl' -'�> s=t / LU-) To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Llbrary JUL 14 Z009 Huntington Beach To Planning Commission PLANNING DEPT. I live in Huntington Harbour but I use the Art Center and the Main Street Library. That is the Cultural C;nter of downtown with the lovely green park. The land was given to the City for a library and park. Destroying the park and library for a large commercial building is a terrible mistake. The downtown needs'the historical library and triangle park. A 40,000 square foot building in that space would do much harm and no good as it would lower residential property values and impact traffic. "Mary Ellen Houseal 1 Wine, Linda From. Nancy Roth[nancy2222@yahoo.com] Sent- Monday, July 13, 2009 9:17 PM To Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library JUL 14 7009 Huntington Beach Linda Wine&Planning Commision, PLANNING DEPT. am ir. PAontana and will not be able to attend the meeting to voice my objections to the Main Street Library being closed, The Library is an important part of any community, President Obama mentions Public Libraries regularly. We wil8 have to drive to other libraries and instead of being a green city we will be enlarging our Carbon Footprint. Please look at getting tenants for all your vacant retail property; finding funding for Pacific Ranch; instead of closing the library. Nancy Roth HB Resident 1 Wine, Linda From: Marti Clark[marticlark@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, July 13,2009 10:22 PM (� To: Wine, Linda Subject: Library and Triangle Park JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach Dear Linda, PLANNING DEPT. We want to state that we are strongly opposed to plans to extend commercial development by destroying the Main Street Library and Triangle Park and building a cultural center.This is a residential area. Our roads are not built for accommodating large numbers of cars, and parking is difficult enough as it is. A cultural center would put great pressure on traffic and parking_ Underground parking would NOT accommodate all the cars.We all know that many people would want to park on residential streets around the area to avoid paying for parking.The DSTP is a really bad idea and we strongly oppose it. Sincerely, Roger and Marti Clark 1 Wine, Linda c From: Verna Johnson[gramiev@socaLrr_com] �� I/EQ Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:00 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Triangle Park JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT My family has lived in this area of Huntington Beach since 1942. My dad bought a home on 7th street in Huntington Beach in 1944. Our family has enjoyed this area so much. When my sister and I were small we played in the front yard, sat on the porch with Mom&Dad talked and laughed. We want our grandchildren and great grandchildren to have the same memories as we have. WE DO NOT WANT THIS AREA TO BE OVER RUN WITH TOURISTS COMING TO SEE A CULTURAL,ARTS CENTER THAT IS THREE STORIES, 35 FEET TALL, 40,000 SQUARE FEET-- THIS IS HUGE! IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD! When the library was built in 1951 my sister and I were very excited. The day it opened our whole family went to see it. My sister and I spent a lot of time doing our school work there,and playing in the park, as did most of the neighbor kids. Hopefully our grandchildren can do the same. WE DO NOT WANT THE DESTRUCTION OF TRIANGLE PARK AND THE HISTORIC MAIN STREET LIBRARY! WE DON'T WANT THE CITY COUNCIL TO USE PARK LANDS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT! This is a residential neighborhood we don't need our lives disrupted by traffic,parking problems,noise, people walking all over our properties. This situation is bad enough already what do you think will happen if a tourist attraction of this size is so close to our neighborhoods. We will be over run. A lot of us have lived here for many many years,we have paid taxes,kept our homes and yards in good shape. We our proud of our homes and neighborhoods and we don't want to see it ruined. WE NEED TO RESTORE AND RENOVATE HISTORIC CULTURAL BUILDINGS SUCH AS THE MAIN STREET LIBRARY RATHER THEN DESTROY THEM! i Wine, Linda From: Dick [djonovich@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:23 AM To: Wine, Linda s Subject: Specific Plan Importance: High JUL 14 2009 Huntipgton Beach PLANNING DEPT. Mrs. Wine, I attended the last planning meeting and understand there is another tonight, I will be in attendance. I continue to be concerned over a number of issues which,to date, have not been addressed. A few of these issues, albeit not all, I have listed below. 1. Where is the traffic study? 2. With the current traffic load on local neighborhood streets, how will these additional trips be mitigated? 3. Has the study included requirements for CEQUA, EIR management and other established mandates? 4. If Triangle Park is in fact,a Deed restricted park, how will this be addressed to allow for a Cultural Center? 5. Commercial development as suggested in the Specific Plan is a very undesirerable for a family based community. 6. Have the Police department commented-on the added liquor licenses being proposed? Finally,we are aware how tempting it can be,given the current economic environment,to look for additional city revenue. However, current conditions will reverse and prosperity will return. In the strongest way, in.y wife and I appose this plan in it's current state and strongly recommend you resist the temptation to push this through. Please allow the voices of your community to be heard and follow their mandate and do not approve Us Specific Plan. Warm ards-, -11- Dick& Karen Jonovich 216 22"d Street 1 Wine, Linda From: Gloria Alvarez[gloria@e-mailcom.com] G Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:38 AM Fff� To: Wine, Linda Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION SESSION -JULY 14TH JUL 14 2009 Dear Ms. Wine, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. I am writing to you today to express my support to preserve the Historic Main St. Library. In reviewing the current Historic Resources Element listed under the City's General Plan, there is no other Historical Landmark still remaining that represents our City's Mid-Century history. The City has before it a wonderful opportunity to anchor our downtown with the Pier at one end and our Historical Library and Park at the other end. Don't be foolish, don't demolish, be smart, be green and rehab a historical building so that everyone, both residents and tourists will be able to celebrate our city's history!!! And how fitting that the City has this opportunity to make a wise and responsible decision as we celebrate our City's Centennial! Regarding the Historic Triangle Park, it is in the City's best interests to be mindful of the lack of open space in downtown for both residents and tourists! How foolish it would be to even consider building over Parkland! To even consider cementing and building over the ONLY existing Parkland in downtown would not be smart, would not be green and has already gone against Public Opinion in Huntington Beach and should the City continue to take this under consideration will go against Public Opinion far beyond the borders of Huntington Beach! I strongly urge all City officials.to be smart, be Green and enhance historic Triangle Park for all to enjoy!!! look forward to sharing my concerns with the Planning Commission at tonights meeting. Thank You, Gloria Alvarez Kramer, HBDRA i Wine, Linda From: James Reilly Dim reillyiii@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:49 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: triangle park JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach My name is James Reilly I have lived in Huntington Beach for 9 years currently at 428 16t PLANNING DEPT. I want to express that I am 100%against the development of triangle park. Stop the development of downtown period. Quality of life is not all about tax dollars. Thanks and have a good week. 1 Wine, Linda From: Mickey Mehalick[mmehalick@earthlink.net] � �IVIE D Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:48 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Library JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach Hello Linda, PLANNING DEPT. This is the same message I sent before and after studying the proposed revised specific plan for the downtown area I feel even stronger about my view on the proposed new structure at 6th_ and Main. My name is Michael Mehalick and 1 have an Architectural Design firm here in H_B. I have seen the conceptual on the proposed structure at Main St. and 6th. and feel it is vastly over scaled for the area and encroaches to much into the existing single-family area adjacent. Such a large project along with the proposed increases further down Main St. would greatly overburden the existing 2- lane accesses of Main St. and Orange Ave. The traffic study does not appear to properly address these conditions. The summer traffic is already showing signs of gridlock. Please consider these issues for the long term quality of the downtown area. We should strive to keep the"Village" concept intact. Regards, Michael Mehalick 1 Wine, Linda From: Coffman Gale [GCoffman@snyder-langston.com] L�L V1 IU Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:37 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Main Street Cultural Center JUL 14 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Linda, I can understand the attaction to this proposed project and as a long term HB resident could even be in favor of a project with some of the qualities described in the preliminary plans.That said this location is completely inapropriate for this type of project due to its proximaty to residental units as well as the land being a green park.It is hard to believe that the City of HB would consider taking away any green park space given the low ratio of park space in the city. We hope that common sense will prevail and plan on doing everything we can to persuade the city to do what is right for the residents of the City of HB, not the tourists Save our "paicli of grass for the dogs to pee on" Gale Coffman 1 Wine, Linda From: shoupsters@juno.com Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:36 AM To: Wine, Linda JUL 14 ���� Subject: Library Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Really Linda, this is Huntington Beach, not New York. I think we need to use what we nave Bown town. ere appears to be plenty of vacant spaces to rent. Lets leave a bit of history and restore the Library, and use it to its fullest. Sincerely, Luanne Nichols Shoup 4th generation property owner of 234 Frankfort Ave. Visit the City of Brotherly Love! Click now for great vacation packages to Philadelphia! http://thirdpart offers.Juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSripTMwID6mdNmVhucQF3LwilUfgUY7pNEFDDP7lPyiuUNFAYH9YODG 1 Wine, Linda From: Aaltje van Krieken [aaltjevk@hotmail_com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:48 AM {„IL It Z! To: Wine, Linda +1Y Subject: Triangle park JUL 14 2009 Please note that I am opposed to the development of TRIANGLE PARK Huntington Beach Aaltje van Krieken PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: GarnerGp@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10.54 AM [N trLJJ To: Wine, Linda Subject: Please Spare Downtown From "ReDevelopment" JUL 14 2009 Dear Linda... Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 will be a�the Planning Meeting this evening with approx 100 other residents of downtown to let you know we want to keep the Library and the Little Park in tact.....Please do not commercialize our residential areas any more that they alread ere._ If you want to spend some redevelopment money-how about underground utility wiring and paving of the alley in my area... I have been fighting this small battle for many years.... Sheila Garner 118 Eighth Ste An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! 1 Wine, Linda From: Patricia Reid [pattyandrj@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:14 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Library JUL 14 2009 How can you tear down a Library? Huntington BeachPLANNING DEPT. In this day& age, are we still making it about money instead of People? More specifically,children who use that library &park. I'm ashamed it's even being considered. Patty Reid 507 15th Street HB 1 Wine, Linda From., Francesco Crosara[francescocrosara@gmaii.com] Sent- Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:02 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: DTSP plan and Triangle Park&Library Dear Ms.Wine, I anti writing to voice my opposition to the plan to destroy Triangle Park and the Main Street Library and replacing it with a multi-story commercial structure. This weekend alone, due to the surfing contest, there is a huge influx of people in the downtown area, and I have observed undesirable behavior especially in the evening hours by rowdy crowds under alcoholic influence. The proposed commercial development plan will only exacerbate this situation. We wish to preserve the relative quiet of our neighborhood and our park and library. Thank you. Francesco Crosara JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Wine, Linda From: Gary Tucker[optimumimage@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:08 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Triangle park I am writing to let you know I am 100%against tearing down the library building on Main St.Not only is this one of the few historical buildings left, trying to turn it into some kind of cultural center is folly and I think a little deceiving. People come to Huntington Beach for the BEACH period. Further, I think the cultural or Museum slant is probably just a ruse to allow more retail or office space. Look at all the vacancy signs downtown now. Do we really need more? This will turn into another eyesore if built. The only people who will benefit are the developers, which is probably the only real reason the cockamamie plan has been proposed in the first place. Thank you, Gary Tucker 727 Main St. 714 654-4506 JUL 27 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wines Linda From. Ted and Carol Szuba[szubaszuba@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 3:01 PM - —to: Wine, Linda Please save triangle park......we need open space for healthy living. Carol &Ted Szuba 302 Crest Ave. HB JUL 27 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: MidgeTchr@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:00 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: my views on development plans for Triangle Park and Main Street Library Dear Linda, I am very upset at the idea of the destruction of our Triangle Park and Main Street Library. Our patio is directly across from the park and I enjoy the peace and quiet of the park as I sit outside reading a book from our nearby library. I also observe other people in the park relaxing or playing with their children there. We bought our condo years ago and saw it as a quiet haven for us to have as empty nesters. With that in mind,we do not want the park and library destroyed for commercial purposes. Although most of the year is peaceful,the summers are noisy enough from tourists and increased traffic, especially on weekends and nightly after the bars and restaurants close. The enjoyment we have in our condo will change drastically if these awful plans for development come to fruition. We do not think tourist attractions belong in residential neighborhoods; it is just not fair to the year-round residents of Huntington Beach. Sincerely, Midge Castro A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in iust 2 easy steps! JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 � Wine, Linda From: Kim Kramer[kim@e-mailcom.com] lent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:39 PM U o: Wine, Linda �, i Subject: Letter to the Planning Commissioners JUL 2 7 2009 Here is an article that we would like to share with the Planning Commissioner[. Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. If You Build It,They Will Come. Unfortunately for the residents of Downtown Huntington Beach, the "it" in this case is a brand new Cultural Arts Center and "they" are hundreds of thousands of tourists poised to invade their residential community. This is not a new story; the City Council wants to create revenue for the city and the residents want to protect their quality of life. The"Man Bites Dog" feature of this story is that the City Council, in their quest for revenue, is willing to demolish the historic Main Street Library, destroy the adjacent Triangle Park, and build the single largest tourist attraction in the history of Huntington Beach, right in the heart of its oldest and most historic residential neighborhood. Thousands of residents from all over town have signed a petition protesting this re-development project and ;,ave inundated the Planning Commission with e-mails and public comments. But the fight goes on all the way to September when the Planning Commission and then the City Council will vote on this issue. It appears Mayor Bohr has already made up his mind however. He was quoted recently in the Orange County Register making the following observation: "It is a library with a patch of green space in a triangle that people bring their dogs to pee on." Some residents are calling his comments arrogant and dismissive. "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, but this library and patch of green space represent a significant quality of life issue to more than 3000 residents that live in this community." says Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association spokesperson, Kim Kramer. Sometimes it's a park like every other park in the city where families congregate and enjoy themselves. And sometimes it serves as a buffer zone to protect them from the late night drunkenness, rowdiness and crime that permeates the neighborhood at 2AM when the Main Street bars close. and now the City Council wants to add a few hundred thousand more tourists to this neighborhood?The residents say, "No Thank You!" i The proposed Cultural Arts Center will be three stories, 35 feet tall and 40,000 square feet,which is 4 times larger than the current library and 16 times larger than the average home in the neighborhood. The proposal includes a small library,performing arts center,retail carts, kiosks, book store, gift store,museum, art gallery, restaurants serving alcohol, underground parking,receiving dock, outdoor accessible public bathrooms and a ridiculously small green belt that is destined to be forever dark and dismal as it will be built in the shadows between the Townsquare Condominiums and the new Cultural Arts Center. The residents of Huntington Beach have joined together in solidarity to protest this re-development project. The HBDRA wishes to preserve our city's history, culture and quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach and keep the residential communities for the enjoyment of the residents and not for the tourists. For more information contact Sue Hart at 714.374.9928 or hb.divakyahoo.com. Linda, the HBDRA wishes to convey to the Planning Commissioners that we are PRO development and PRO tourism and appreciate both as being important to the future success of our city. We are also PRO conservation, PRO historical preservation,PRO cultural preservation,PRO residential quality of life,PRO parkland and PRO "GREEN." We object to the commercial development of parkland for any reason. We believe parkland is a sacred trust that must be preserved for future generations. We object to the destruction of the Main Street Library which has both cultural and historical significance to all residents of Huntington Beach. We object to the infusion of more tourists into our residential communities and wish-to maintain our residential communities for the exclusive use of the residents. Sincerely, Kim Kramer Spokesperson, Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association 2 Wine, Linda From: Betsy Roth [betsylroth@gmaii.com] >Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 5:08 PM - ---To: Wine, Linda Subject: LIBRARY DEAR LINDA, I AM A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT AND WISH TO CONVEY TO YOU THAT I AM OPPOSED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND TRIANGLE PARK. I LIVE ON 13TH STREET AND WALK DAILY TO OUR DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY. I AM VERY PRO BUSINESS BUT AM TOTALLY AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT OF OUR DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY! I AM AGAINST OUR PARKS BEING DEVELOPED AND OUR OLD BUILDINGS BEING DEMOLISHED FOR MORE TOURISM RIGHT NEXT TO OUR HOMES. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH! SINCERELY, BETSY ROTH 711 13TH STREET ;v tl JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: oneworld29-surf@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 5:25 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: Proposed performing arts center I am opposed to demolishing the old historic library! In very recent years the adjacent neighborhood was proposed as historic,which did not pass.Now the city proposses to tear down a historic library and park. This is not acceptable! Please keep us in mind as a resisdents. Igo we not deserve to enjoy our neighborhoods? Linda Aroz - ... ...-.. -� 4--' {J JUL 27 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Heather Roth [hdodge@gmail.com] lent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:51 PM -to: Wine, Linda Subject: PLEASE SAVE DOWNTOWN LIBRARY DEAR LINDA, MY HUSBAND AND I ARE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS AND WISH TO CONVEY TO YOU THAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR DOWNTOWN LIBRARY AND TRIANGLE PARK. WE LIVE ON 2ND STREET, WALK DAILY TO OUR DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY,AND USE THE LIBRARY FOR BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL PURPOSES. WE ARE VERY PRO BUSINESS BUT ARE TOTALLY AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT OF OUR DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY! WE ARE AGAINST OUR PARKS BEING DEVELOPED AND OUR OLD BUILDINGS BEING DEMOLISHED FOR MORE TOURISM RIGHT NEXT TO OUR HOMES. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH! SINCERELY, HEATHER AND ADAM ROTH 309 2ND STREET u L_EU JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From: Marilyn Smith [honuhb@me.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 6:40 PM To: Kim Kramer - Cc: Wine, Linda Subject: Re: Letter to the Planning Commissioners Kim, To keep us better informed and consistent with our facts a out this "article," would you please follow-up this email with: The article's date The article's author The article's publication source Thanks, I�il(L��r ���[EFC��/�j_�t�/ Roger and Marilyn ti ►�__t. I JUL 2 7 2009 On Jul 26, 2009, at 4:38 PM,Kim Kramer wrote: Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Here is an article that we would like to share with the Planning Commissioners. If You Build It,They Will Come. Unfortunately for the residents of Downtown Huntington Beach, the"it" in this case is a brand new Cultural Arts Center and "they" are hundreds of thousands of tourists poised to invade their residential community. This is not a new story; the City Council wants to create revenue for the city and the residents want to protect their quality of life. The"Man Bites Dog" feature of this story is that the City Council, in their quest for revenue, is willing to demolish the historic Main Street Library, destroy the adjacent Triangle Park, and build the single largest tourist attraction in the history of Huntington Beach, right in the heart of its oldest and most historic residential neighborhood. Thousands of residents from all over town have signed a petition protesting this re-development project and have inundated the Planning Commission with e-mails and public comments. But the fight goes on all the way to September when the Planning Commission and then the City Council will vote on this issue. It appears Mayor Bohr has already made up his mind however. He was quoted recently in the Orange County Register making the following observation: "It is a library with a patch of green space in a triangle that people bring their dogs to pee on." Some residents are calling his comments arrogant and dismissive. i "Thank you, Mr. Mayor, but this library and patch of green space represent a significant quality of life issue to more than 3000 residents that live in this community." says Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association spokesperson, Kim Kramer. Sometimes it's a park like every other park in the city where families congregate and enjoy themselves. And sometimes it serves as a buffer zone to protect them from the late night drunkenness,rowdiness and crime that permeates the neighborhood at 2AM when the Main Street bars close. And now the City Council wants to add a few hundred thousand more tourists to this neighborhood? The residents say, "No Thank You!" The proposed Cultural Arts Center will be three stories, 35 feet tall and 40,000 square feet,which is 4 times larger than the current library and 16 times larger than the average home in the neighborhood. The proposal includes a small library,performing arts center,retail carts,kiosks, book store, gift store, museum, art gallery, restaurants serving alcohol, underground parking, receiving dock, outdoor accessible public bathrooms and a ridiculously small green belt that is destined to be forever dark and dismal as it will be built in the shadows between the Townsquare Condominiums and the new Cultural Arts Center. The residents of Huntington Beach have joined together in solidarity to protest this re-development project. The HBDRA wishes to preserve our city's history, culture and quality of life for the residents of Huntington Beach and keep the residential communities for the enjoyment of the residents and not for the tourists. For more information contact Sue Hart at 714.374.9928 or hb.divakyahoo.com. ### Linda, the HBDRA wishes to convey to the Planning Commissioners that we are PRO development and PRO tourism and appreciate both as being important to the future success of our,city. We are also PRO conservation,PRO historical preservation, PRO cultural preservation, PRO residential quality of life, PRO parkland and PRO "GREEN." We object to the commercial development of parkland for any reason. We believe parkland is a sacred trust that must be preserved for future generations. We object to the destruction of the Main Street Library which has both cultural and historical significance to all residents of Huntington Beach. We object to the infusion of more tourists into our residential communities and wish to maintain our residential ommunities for the exclusive use of the residents. 2 Sincerely, Kira Kramer Spokesperson, Huntington Beach.Downtown Residents Association 3 Wine, Linda From: Althea Santucci[badduck@earthlink.net] 'Sent-, Monday, July 27, 2009 7:47 PM -fi o: Wine, Linda Subject, Please do not take our green space for money! Save the Library and Trinangle Park Linda, Our green space is vital to the city, people, and visitors. Save the park, save our history, and keep our neighborhoods safe and livable.. JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. J 1 Wine, Linda From: Marilyn Smith [honuhb@me.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:43 PM To: Wine, Linda - Subject: DTSP'S CULTURAL ARTS OVERLAY ENDANGERS OUR 40W -DON'T DESTROY RESIDENTS'QUALITY OF LIFE, GRE E Y SIGNIFICANT SITES JUL 2 7 2009 Dear Ms. Wine, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. This communication is intended to be directed to the City of Huntington Beach (The City) representatives, administrators, and all others with input and/or authority regarding the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. This email and my prior emails to you of June 22, 2009, and July 13, 2009, are in support of the preservation of Huntington Beach's Triangle Park and Main Street Library. Per the City's last two Downtown Special Specific Plan (DTSP) Study Sessions and Planning Commission Meetings, it is clear that we and thousands of other Huntington Beach residents OPPOSE THE CULTURAL ARTS OVERLAY(CAO)IN THE DTSP. For a multitude of reasons, which thousands of residents have communicated (verified in petitions, vocalized at Study Sessions, written in emails, and otherwise communicated to the City), the CAO SHOULD be and NEEDS to be removed from the DTSP. I do not want to waste your time and energy repeating to you what you have already heard from RM Design Group(RM) and have readily available for reading in RM's submitted documents. However, I do ask you to PLEASE thoroughly examine and question the appropriateness and validity of RM's extreme number of open-ended, vague, and non- committed statements throughout their written and oral presentations to date in regard to the CAO. Clarity and safeguards are absolutely necessary and warranted whenever a City is in jeopardy of destroying its residents'quality of life, the City's green space, and the City's historically significant sites. However, clarity and safeguards are glaringly missing from RM's presentations. RM's written and oral presentations do not represent what is best for Huntington Beach. YOU and all of us concerned residents are the City's representatives and guardians. It is our privilege and duty to respectfully, responsibly, and carefully work for our City's present and future well-being. Just because we paid money to RM,just because tourism is big business,just because economics and politics are powerful motivators, it would not be right to include the CAO as part of the DTSP, and, it would be unconscionable to vote in favor of a CAO full of vague and open-ended double talk. Nothing justifies minimizing, discounting, or disregarding the need to do our best to insure the OVERALL well-being of our City and its residents. Please strive for right thoughts and right actions in regard to the current and long-term effects on quality of life for residents, preservation of green space,and protection of historically significant sites. Please remove the CAO from the DTSP. Please do not support RM's endless written pages and verbal responses that are filled to the point of ad nauseam with vague, non-conclusive, open-ended, and dangerous statements(statements of"could be,""might be,""may or may not be", "not certain`', "not yet determined", "not finalized,""we don't know,""that will be left open,"etc.) instead of insuring sincere interests and efforts in regard to residents' quality of life, preserving green space, and protecting historically significant sites. IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR A DTSP THAT HAS CLARITY AND SAFEGUARDS? NO, it is not! With this email, I will not address in detail RM's comments/presentation about traffic, parking, street changes, trollies, etc. at the last Study Session. Suffice it to say, that RM's method of delivering drivel as contained in their presentations to date and that I've described in my paragraphs above, was again obvious in RM's failure to efficiently identify, clarify, or justify any of their not-very-committed/take-no-responsibility "recommendations." Thank you, again, Ms. Wine and all of you at the City of Huntington Beach for your time and hopefully careful consideration of these important matters. Sincerely, Marilyn and Roger Smith Huntington Beach residents Wine, Linda From: Judy Pariseau [camiolady c@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:59 AM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Down town Specific Plan Dear Linda, I live on 6th Street and enjoy the green area around the library. I also see a lot of young children who are taken to the park in small groups enjoying Triangle Park. I think it would be a real shame to lose Triangle Park. I am absolutely against building a large 4 story building in that area. I believe the traffic problem would be prohibitive and not in the best interests of people who travel on Main Street regularly. Please consider the residents of this city as well as the interests of the City Council for tourism. Judy Pariseau 211 6th Street Hunt. Beach, CA. ECF-�Vr© ,1111 2 8 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 Wine, Linda From; William Montgomery[wpmonty1@verizon_net] Senf- Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:40 PM 10- Wine, Linda Subject' Main Street Library I don't have any idea where someone could have come up with a more hair-brained idea than to build a'CULTURAL CENTER" in the middle of our wonderful downtown residential area. We have the defunct Pierside Theatre. We hive our Main library at central park with a lovely theater that is underused, especially since"city hall" raised the taxes_ i will tell you this-we are ready to give whatever time and effort and money it takes to defeat this proposed projec,:; along with not re-electing the present city council and all their appointed lackeys. We have lived here since 1976 and Olought the hotels on PCH were a bad idea!! That bad idea doesn't hold a candle to this one!! Elaine and Bill Montgomery, 301 9th street. ic,0VED ii n 28 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. 1 MICHAEL C. ADAMS ASSOCIATES July 24, 2009 Kellee Fritzal i V Economic Development City of Huntington Beach JUL 2 7 2009 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. Re: Downtown Huntington Beach Parking Master Plan Study (March 2009, Prepared by Kimley-Horn &Associates, Inc. Kellee: The topics of parking and circulation in Downtown Huntington Beach have been the major concern of property owners and business since the beginning of the Specific Plan Amendment process. One of the community workshops was totally devoted to the expression of community concerns on downtown parking and circulation. The Downtown Community, which responded to the initial draft of the proposed changes to the Specific Plan, also expressed major concerns with parking and circulation but were told a special meeting of the group would be scheduled later when the draft report was available. On July 17t" a copy of the March 2009 study was finally distributed for comment with only a one week turnaround. This topic is far too critical to the future success of the Downtown Community to simply be rushed through a limited review process. Attached are comments which have yet to be adequately addressed by staff or the consultant; I hope others will find the time to provide their input in this very limited review time frame. Sincerely, Mike Adams enc: Comments P.O.BOX 382 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 PHONE 714.374.5678 FAX 714.374.2211 AdamsAssoc@socal.mcom July 24, 2009 To: Kellee Fritzal From: Mike Adams Subject: Comments on Downtown Parking Master Plan Study, dated March 2009 (p.1) The introduction states three objectives 1. Identify the existing parking study 2. Measuring current parking demand 3. Recommending parking strategies under existing conditions However, the real task is an analysis of the cumulative impacts of existing Downtown activities with a 60% increase in commercial development, as proposed in the amended Specific Plan. (p.1) Maximum Development Potential Chart needs to state that this is new or additional development, the hotel figure needs to be translated into square footage (235 units = apx. 120,000-140,000 sq. ft. of additional commercial) (p.2) The shared parking concept has proven to be an effective way to measure the true parking demand for the downtown. The parking ratio chart however does not allow restaurant uses the opportunity to take advantage of the shared concept, their parking requirement remains at 1 sp/100 sf. Hotel and residential parking requirements are not noted in the chart. (p.2) Parking Inventory The boundaries shown do not reflect the expanded boundaries for Planning Area 1 proposed in the draft Specific Plan. (p.5) Parking Study Chart The chart should identify the expanded parking supply with the expanded boundaries. The chart should include the parking within the Strand project. Beach parking should also be included in the chart. (p.8) Add the Strand to the list of parking structures. (p.12) The report indicates that the overall parking demand can be met with the exception of select summer holidays and events. Therefore, a greater emphasis needs to be placed on addressing those concerns (better management of beach parking resources, creation of additional beach parking, etc.). (p.12) Peak demand period 7:00 -8:00 PM (p.15) Peak demand period 8:00 - 9:00 PM (p.21) "The parking demand greatly exceeds the parking capacity..." define greatly (p.25) According to the study parking demand only exceeds the supply on summer weekends (apx. 5% of the year) and during beach events (apx. 4% of the year). These two demands also overlap; therefore, the true problem should be solvable through better management of the beach parking resources. (p.26) Strategies 1. To Construct New Parking on Vacant Parcels. As an interim measure only. The potential supply of new parking obtainable is limited and the cost of the land and construction is high, this approach is not cost effective. The sites identified are in locations most likely to benefit from the proposed changes to the Specific Plan and will therefore likely to be developed in the near future and not available for additional parking. The sites are also in poor locations to benefit any expanded parking demand for the downtown core. Better new parking options: • Expand beach parking • Add additional on street parking (through additional right-of-way acquisition) • Add public parking with a renegotiated Agreement on the Pacific City site 2. Providing Employee Only Parking Areas is one of many parking management strategies which should be considered. A centralized management system for the entire supply of downtown parking could be achieved if adequately subsidized by the City. 3. Providing more bicycle parking will not address the problems identified in the report. Additional bicycle parking is a benefit to a limited number of residents in the community. Eliminating on-street parking spaces or limiting vehicle access to accommodate bicycles will not address either the existing or anticipated parking and circulation concerns. If adding bicycle parking facilities reduces the need for downtown parking, than an analysis should be included in the report. 4. (p.29) Establish an Organized Valet Parking Program. A centralized downtown valet parking system might work if properly planned and adequately subsidized by the City. The beach parking lots should be included in this type of program, for convenience and visibility. 5. (p.30) Use of Remote Spaces has failed a number of times in the past, however, if combined with a regularly scheduled shuttle service and properly located, maybe. City Hall, Seacliff Office Park, Huntington Beach High School, the Sports Complex and Library; all have their own parking issues and regular scheduling would be difficult. The State Beach parking lots and commercial centers along Beach Blvd. could be better options. 6. (p.32) While reducing commercial parking intrusions into the residential neighborhoods may be a concern discussed in the parking study, it is certainly not a strategy to address parking demand. Resident permit parking is available and should be implemented during the evening and overnight hours, however, daytime use of the on-street parking should be available to the general public. 7. (p.35) Parking signage needs to be consistent, graphic and informative. Huntington Beach has tried a number of poorly conceived approaches. Parking information needs to start somewhere along Beach Blvd. and Goldenwest Streets with periodic reminders until a parking location is reached. The signage needs to be bold with clear direction. The report should have shown some examples with data to indicate that "way-finding signage"will reduce the demand for additional parking or improve on-street circulation. If that is not the case then it is questionable as to why it is addressed in the report. 8. (p.36) All the general public use of private facilities can be achievable, if the private owner is adequately subsidized. However, the benefit of the 125 additional parking spaces identified in the report will yield little benefit. 9. If modifying the parking rates is intended to unify the downtown parking cost for consistency there might be a benefit. However, any raise in the parking rates will further create problems with the adjacent downtown residential neighbors and place Huntington Beach in a competitive disadvantage to other commercial areas. 10.The Department of Community Services has previously managed the public parking facilities. Expansion of an existing activity would be better than creating a new system. 11.Parking concerns could be addressed by one of the City's numerous existing committees or boards. A new limited function committee is not necessary. 12.An annual Parking Report that addressed supply, demand and activity would be beneficial if produced in a timely manner. (p.38) Strategies to support new development seems to indicate that if all new residential and hotel development provide on-site parking, and the remaining new commercial development either provide parking on-site or pay an in-lieu fee; than the downtown can expand by over 400,00 square feet without any definitive way of increasing the parking supply This document should be a strategy that shows the true projected demand for downtown parking based on the potential to expand by 60%. The plan should include strategies for new parking opportunities with locations and quantities identified. The report provided lacks the necessary substance, on parking and circulation issues, to make sound and logical planning decisions addressing the growth and development of downtown Huntington Beach. Downtown Parking Study -- Written Public Comments -ice. "oor Mail _..,-.,.._.=�..a Page 1 of 3 MAIL s L�99 Ctassit Downtown Parking Study--Written Public Comments _ "�'44ond4,July 27,2009 6:26 PM f From: "richardson.gray@yahoo.com" <richardson.gray@yahoo.com> To: JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org Dear Jennifer: Please confirm your receipt of this email by a return email. The Cultural Arts Overlay is an inappropriate location for a sizable underground parking garage, as proposed explicitly in the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) draft of June 12, 2009, Page 5-1 S, and possibly implicitly in Downtown Parking Study of March 2009, Page 39,for the following reasons. 1. The Triangle Park on which the Main Street Library sits is the only park in downtown away from the beach. It is the second oldest park in the City, dating back to 1912. The original deed for Triangle Park to the City has a restriction that it remain parkland forever. I think Triangle Park is the most historic park in the City. Placing a large garage underneath it would denigrate the park's present pastoral quality, would probably require the removal of its ten old growth palm trees,and would compromise the park's historic character. 2. The Main Street Library building might be demolished or degraded to build an underground parking structure. Jerry Person, the City's Historian, has told me that the Main Street Library definitely would qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. I believe that this building is the most historic structure in downtown, first built in 1951, and still retaining its historic character in both its exterior and interior appearances. 3. The Cultural Arts Overlay is bordered on two sides with existing established residential uses, which makes this location an unacceptable one for a sizable underground garage serving the parts of downtown near to the beach. The Cultural Arts Overlay is surrounded by existing established residential uses. 4. The Draft EIR at page 4-224 calls for 161 new off-site parking spaces needed in the area surrounding Triangle Park. If all of these spaces are built at Triangle Park,with the addition of the proposed cultural center's parking needs, the total parking spaces in the underground garage could exceed 300 spots, a massive amount of public parking next to established residential areas. 5. On page 24 of the Downtown Parking Study, Kimley-Horn acknowledges that the current parking deficiency downtown is only for 15 days a year, 4%of the total year, during summer special events. It is a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars to build stuctured parking to fill such a small downtown deficiency. Any new parking, as needed, should be located nearer to the downtown's main attraction,the beach, and not in the residential neighborhoods. 6. In the Draft EIR on page 4-194,the cultural center proposal includes a 150-seat theater and a 30,000- square-foot museum. These two tourist attractions would generate almost 600 additional vehicle trips per day. 7. The Draft EIR on the DTSP acknowledges that air pollution levels for the long term will exceed Southern California and national thresholds for three types of pollution: inhalable particulates(PM-10),fine particulate matter(PM-2.5), and Reactive Organic Compounds (ROG). For two of these types of pollution, per page 29 of the Draft EIR's Appendix B,the net increases in inhalable particulates and ROG will exceed the SoCal thresholds by 40%to 45%. In addition,the national standard for fine particulate matter is being lowered (page 4-33, Note 4) so that the net increase in this air pollutant will be 20%above the national threshold. To quote the Draft EIR at page 4-52, "[t]he long-term regional air quality impacts due the proposed project (primarily due to increased vehicle trips) . . . will be significant and unavoidable. . . . ROG and PM-10 emissions[will] exceed the SCAQMD thresholds", as will PM- 2.5 also under the new national standard. These levels of air pollution, in part generated by the underground parking structure proposed for Triangle Park, are unacceptable in the midst of established httn•1/nc mt-55t1 mail vnhnn rnm/mr./chnwMPccauP�cMirl-(1R�firi-�PntRrfiltPrRv=RrmirlTnri 7/7.719.00c) Downtown Parking Study -- Written Public Comments - Yahoo! Mail Page 2 of 3 residential areas. 8. The Cultural Arts Overlay is served only by two-lane, local roads, nearly all through established residential neighborhoods. The only nonresidential exception is the blocks of Main Street from PCH to Sixth Street, which already are often literally choked with traffic. The vast majority of traffic from Interstate 405 will take Main Street from Beach Boulevard or from Yorktown after turning off of Golden West. This two-lane stretch of Main Street already is overburdened with peak summer traffic, and is lined on both sides with existing established single family homes and neighborhoods. 9. At page 2-14 of the Draft EIR, it is stated that most of the long term noice impacts will be from vehicle traffic. From page 10 of Appendix E of the Draft EIR, you can see that no noise measurements were taken near the site of the proposed cultural center. Measurements should have been taken at 6th and Main, at Acacia and Main, and at the 90-degree corner of Pecan. 10. Since its re-founding in December of last year,the Downtown Resident Association (DRA) has built a growing membership already exceeding 400, and has been working on a petition since that time to preserve the Main Street Library and its surrounding Triangle Park as they are now. To date, over 3,750 Huntington Beach residents have signed this petition. The vast majority of these signers live downtown. By the time of the November 2010 City Council elections, I expect that the DRA will have at least 10,000 residents as signers of this petition. 11. Despite this strong downtown resident opposition to the City's proposal to redevelop the Main Street Library and Triangle Park as a cultural center, including underground parking,the Planning Department and Economic Development Department actually increased the size of the net new development square footage for this proposed cultural center by 50%,from 20,000 to 30,000. In my opinion, this total disregard of opposition from downtown residents calls into question the efficacy of the entire public review process for the DTSP and its Cultural Arts Overlay. 12. Although the Huntington Beach Marketing and Visitors Bureau (HBMVB) has possession of at least a draft of a Market Demand Study for the cultural center proposed for Main Street Library and Triangle Park, a study that I understand has been circulated at City Hall,the HBMVB thus far has refused to make this study available to the public. The HBMVB has rejected my formal Public Records Request. According to what I have heard, this Market Demand Study has crucial details about the City's and downtown hotel community's vision for this cultural center. Without the immediate release of this document to the public, the City's public review process on this Downtown Parking Study, on the DTSP, and on its Draft EIR, in my opinion, is being fatally compromised. 13. In my January 2009 comments to the December 2008 DTSP draft, over six months ago, I first raised the question of Measure C's applicability to the proposed development of Triangle Park, and stated that Measure C should apply. I personally met with Jennifer McGrath, our elected City Attorney,twice at the end of May. Although she has indicated a few times to me that she thinks Measure C will apply to the proposed cultural center, she has yet to provide the public with a copy of her Measure C analysis, as she promised to do almost two months ago now. Furthermore, I remember that Tom Livengood,the Planning Commissioner, requested this Measure C analysis from the City Attorney's office at the June 23rd Study Session on the Downtown Plan. Again,this analysis has not yet been released to the public. 14. Along with a hard copy of this email, I am hand delivering a copy of an email that the Sierra Club's Angeles Chapter sent to the City Council, in support of the preservation of Triangle Park. 15. The preservation of Main Street Library and Triangle Park also has been unanimously supported by the Board of Directors for the Townsquare Condominiums, the Townsquare Master Homeowners Association, and the Townsquare Town Homes Homeowners Association, in three separate emails that were submitted as written public comments to the December DTSP. 16. The preservation of Triangle Park has been supported by the Parks Legal Defense Fund (the group that is suing the City over the new Senior Center proposed for Central Park), in emails that were submitted as written public comments to the December DTSP. Thank you for your consideration of my views and, I hope, your support for the ending of this defective proposal: To build a large parking structure and major tourist attraction at the sites of Main Street Library and Triangle Park, directly bordering established residential areas. httn•//nc mr550 mail vnhnn 7/77000c) Dn',,-',/niown Parking Study -- Written Public Comments - Yahoo! Mail Page 3 of 3 Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane #208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714.-348--1928 httn-//n.-, mr.55n mail vnhno V.Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update--Draft -6Ff2-4`U-8:T'reservat... Page-1 oT-3 a_ M I L classk FW: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update-Draft EIR of 12-4-08: Preservation of the Park Encompassing the Main Street Library Wednesday,March 11, 2009 4:54 AM From: "Patricia Barnes" <mezzohiker@msn.com> To: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Hello Richardson! Here is a copy of the letter that I sent to the HB City Council-I decided to forward a copy to you rather than send a "bcc." Patti 41 Mayor Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy City of Huntington Beach City Hall Fourth Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report of December 4, 2008 (Draft EIR) Preservation of the Park Surrounding the Main Street Library Dear Mayor and Council Members: On March 3, 2009, the Executive Committee of the Orange County Group of the Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, voted unanimously to support preservation of the historic park which encompasses Huntington Beach's Main Street Library as called for in the petition circulated by the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association. It has been brought to our attention that this petition, to this date, has been signed by as many as 1,200 registered voters within the city of Huntington Beach. Because the Orange County Group has many members who reside within the city of Huntington Beach, and because we are a "grassroots" organization of persons who believe that parklands, open space and public lands are crucial components of a healthful and desirable quality of life within each and every community, and hold this to be particularly true when considering neighborhoods as densely populated as the downtown area in which the Main Street Library is located, we are supporting protection and preservation of this park. Specific concerns on which we predicate our support for preservation of the park are as httn://us_me55().mail vnhnn N,73,i.:'�iuniington-Beach- Downtown Specific-Plan-Update -Drafter of"l'2-4=08: Preservat... Wage TOT 3 follows: 1. We are aware that a serious paucity of green space already exists within the downtown area of Huntington Beach. We have also been informed by the Downtown Residents Association that the City constructed the Main Street Library in 1951 on the Triangle Park. The construction of additional buildings in this vicinity would, of course, futher reduce the amount of green space available for the benefit of area residents, as well as depreciate the historic value of this park. ' 2. The park encompassing the Main Street Library provides a necessary buffer between the extensively developed downtown commericial district located near the beach and the residential neighborhoods that exist along the perimeter of the district. The construction of a performing arts or cultural center immediately adjacent to these existing residential neighborhoods would have a significant impact on noise, traffic, and pollution within an area that is already extremely congested, particularly during warmer months. We have also been informed that other areas exist within the city of Huntington Beach that are aesthetically, economically, and environmentally far more suitable and are better situated for the the construction and operation of a performing arts or cultural center. 3. We believe that the public benefits of this land should be perpetuated. We do not want the inclusion of a provision allowing for the sale of a majority of this public land to be used for private purposes such as the construction of as many as three stories of private condominiums, apartments, or lofts to be included in the final EIR. Thank you very much for your consideration of supporting the preservation of this historic park. Sincerely, Patricia Barnes Chairperson Orange County Group Executive Committee Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter cc: Meg Vaughn California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 j hnn'//itc mnSSn mail vnhnn nnm/mr,1QhnXXIMPcca0ra?fifJ—inhny)&enrt—data Q�nrriPr—�in.xmRTet /7 1;'_�;7 Wine, Linda From: richardson.gray@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:59 PM To: Wine, Linda Subject: Planning Commission Study Session -July 28th—Dowr t6i _ r" verlay Dear Ms. Wine: JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach Please make this email a part of the Planning Commission record of written Jublic li' v&v Mhe re 11 renced study session. My major concerns with the Planning Commission Study Sessions to date is the information that has kept from the public in our consideration of the appropriate siting for the proposed cultural center and for structured parking. Targeting the Main Street Library(Library) and its surrounding Triangle Park(Park)is wholly inappropriate for this proposed cultural center and any planned structured parking(Center). Visitors Bureau Market Demand Study for the Proposed Cultural Center The first major piece of information that has not been released to the public is the Visitors Bureau Market Demand Study for the proposed Center. This Market Demand Study's draft, according to what I have learned from my own reliable sources, is for a very large and very visitor-intensive ocean themed museum. According to the DTSP of June 2009, the Center is proposed to be as large as 50,000 square feet, including culturally related retail uses, or over five times the size of the existing, historic Library buildings. While I would support such a cultural center for downtown nearer to Pacific Coast Highway, such a huge tourist, attraction is wholly ill suited for the Library and Park, and their bordering established residential areas. i This size tourist attraction at the Library and Park literally would ruin the residential quality of life in the established neighborhoods near the north end of downtown. The couple of key ideas that I have learned about the Feasibility Study Draft are as follows: 1. The proposed Center is projected to attract as many as 400,000 museum, special events, and restaurant visitors annually. This level of attendance would make the proposed Center on of the busiest museum attractions, if not the absolute busiest, in all of Southern California. 2. The proposed Center is to contain multiple special events venues, including full alcohol and entertainment permits and outdoor areas, which together would be as large as or even larger than the biggest restaurants, bars, and nightclubs currently in downtown. There are several reasons why I, as a resident who owns his home at the north end of downtown, find these details completely horrifying: • With its projected 400,000 visitors annually, the proposed Center would be a mammoth noise generator bordering established residential areas. • At its proposed size, the Center would spawn a massive increase in traffic congestion, including the attendant air and noise pollution from vehicles. • This increase in vehicle traffic would have a huge adverse impact especially on Main Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Adams Street, which is already an over-burdened, two-lane road lined on both sides by established single-family home neighborhoods. To reach the proposed Center from Interstate 405, almost all traffic ultimately would take this stretch of Main Street. • The Library and Park, and their surrounding residential neighborhoods, are a totally inappropriate location for such an enormous tourist attraction. The Library and Park's only access is via two-lane, local roads,which are almost entirely through established residential areas. The one exception is the stretch of Main Street from PCH, which already too often is literally choked with traffic during summer days. 1 ® The Center would require a very large number of on-site parking spaces, in excess of 300 per the Downtown Parking Study. ® Downtown's largest restaurants, bars, and nightclubs already are too big, too rowdy, and too noise for their locations in the midst of established neighborhoods. All of these existing large downtown restaurants, bars, and { nightclubs are south of Olive Avenue, a full two to three blocks from the dense residential areas north of downtown. The proposed Center's special events venues easily could bring the noisiness and rowdiness of downtown to the doorsteps of these many homes and their residents. Such large special events would include rushes of vehicle traffic at the beginning and end of each event. The City has already created similar mismatch of uses at the Black Bull and Pier Colony location, with distrastous consequences for many downtown residents. The City should not make a second such serious mistake at the Park and Library. Measure C Analysis In my January 2009 comments to the December 2008 DTSP draft, over six months ago, I first raised the question of Measure C's applicability to the proposed development of Triangle Park, and stated that Measure C should apply. I personally met with Jennifer McGrath, our elected City Attorney, twice at the end of May. Although she has indicated a few times to me that she thinks Measure C will apply to the proposed cultural center, she has yet to provide the public with a copy of her Measure C analysis, as she promised to do almost two months ago now. Furthermore, 1 remember that Tom Livengood, the Planning Commissioner, requested this Measure C analysis from the City Attorney's office at the June 23rd Study Session on the Downtown Plan. Again, this analysis has not yet been released to the public. Richardson Gray 415 Townsquare Lane#208 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-348-1928 richardson.gray_nyahoo.corn z Wine, Linda From: Villasenor, Jennifer Sent: Monday,July 27, 2009 4:47 PM To: Wine, Linda Cc: Fauland, Herb Subject: Comments Submittal—Downtown Parking Study Attachments: PRT Detailed_V1 3.pdf; RMedel_FTB_Comment V1.21.pdf; Kellee Fritzal.doc; HB_2008 V1.21.pdf Late communication-parking 'COVE,-, HE Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach JUL 2 7 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. From: Roy Reynolds [mailto:roy.reynolds@prtstrategies.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:33 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Bohr, Keith Subject: Comments Submittal -- Downtown Parking Study 714.531.7076 www.prtstrategies.corr, PRT'Strategies July 27, 2009 Ms. Jennifer Villasenor Associate Planner Economic Development Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Jennifer: PRT Strategies has thoroughly reviewed both recent studies involving Huntington Beach's Downtown area. As many are aware, including HB Tomorrow, none of your consultants have proposed a transit solution which would partly resolve two very significant and disparate issues: • Unlike the existing OCTA bus system, a transit system targeted at a middle-class demographic, one which offered a quick and comfortable on-demand, secure and private ride to the area,would attract this very desirable demographic to the Downtown from anywhere along the Beach/Edinger Corridors (as proposed in the attached to Rosemary Medel)AND potentially from the Anaheim and Disney Resorts (as linked here and here—these animated PowerPoints are also available on a CD we'll be posting you). Estimates are that Huntington Beach draws about 13 million visitors annually to the beach and Downtown area. Anaheim and Disney draw double that, 1 about 27 million tourists and conventioneers per year, and with our PRT technology, these visitors could be less than a 30-minute ride to your Pier and Downtown businesses. In the attached, we're proposing a 24/7/365 computerized state-of-the-art Personal Rapid Transit(PRT)system as a solution which also brings these potentially millions of visitors to the Downtown WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES which Kimley-Horn indicates will be very difficult to accommodate. This demographic has no way to reach the area unless expensive rental cars or taxis are employed as we believe they will NOT ride the bus system—if this was already the case, it would have been discovered and touted by your consultants. As we're proposing an elevated system, certainly there will also be a reduction in traffic congestion—PRT competes with no other system in its own space and does not require parking at its stations. Access to the Downtown by buses is also limited by its narrow streets and lack of convenient stops—and the system does not provide shuttle service(think "horizontal elevator")that would be desirable between Main Street and the Hyatt/Hilton/Pacific City complex. The most promising attribute in our recommendation is that PRT could be funded by OCTA's Measure M (Project S was estimated at$1 billion)and not out of the City's constrained budget. Further, unlike conventional transit, PRT is extremely amenable to Public/Private Partnerships and we believe it quite conceivable that your local hotels, shopping centers and "big box" retailers would be willing to fund their own stations and, possibly, vehicles in partial support of the system's cost (on-board and on-vehicle advertising is also a considerable revenue source). Considering that, our vendors also advise us that PRT should cost only$30 million/mile, roughly one-fifth the cost of a comparable at-grade light rail system. Our recommendations for PRT somewhat match, but on a far grander scale, the shuttle system that Kimley-Horn proposed. But, that(early to late night required)scheme is still automobile focused, causing continued traffic and congestion in the City and requiring fares and parking spaces which the user might not appreciate paying for(if that was contemplated as a revenue generator, otherwise it's a considerable expense). Our recommendation could mitigate the need to"contract additional spaces on vacant parcels"—rather, this real estate might better be used for revenue properties, possibly generating property and business taxes. As we recommend PRT for the commercial and retail areas of the City, we believe Downtown area residents would be inclined to use it, reducing congestion and competition for parking since this demographic does not seem to use the OCTA bus system. Please be aware that during our research, neither RRM, FTB or either of their two parking and traffic consultants we willing to return our telephone calls or meet with us regarding any of this material—we're then unable to provide you any feedback we might have received from these firms. Neither was Huntington Beach's 2"d District Representative to the - OCTA Board willing to meet with us regarding our ideas and proposals. Neither was Stanley Smalewitz or Kellee Fritzal (letter attached)of your Department willing to meet with us. We did appreciate a cordial meeting with Mayor Bohr(a former EDD staffer)a few months ago and were able to make our points and have his attention to our ideas. PRT is viable now, has been proven in U.S. revenue service and has been declared"ready for primetime" by the City of San Jose. Our most promising vendor has recently been safety-certified by the Swedish Rail Authority and is working with my firm to explore opportunities in the United States. We have recently approached the City of Anaheim for consideration as an alternative for a collector/distributor system in their Resort area ARTIC H Disneyland)—should this succeed, we'd be perfectly positioned to extend this system into Huntington Beach using either the Santa Ana River and/or Beach Blvd. This also connects your residents to the Metrolink and creates the potential for it to feed visitors to your City. PRT has the potential of bringing visitors AND revenue to your City—it would be an asset, resolving traffic and congestion problems rather than creating them. Put another way, PRT technology would increase visitation to the Downtown and decrease parking requirements, and without reducing revenue currently collected from your existing resources. We'd appreciate the opportunity to formally present this to your Department as it should be interested in the business development and revenue potential and,when appropriate, to the Planning Commission and the City Council. If we can answer any questions for you, please contact me directly. Thanks for your consideration and interest. Best regards, RWW Re � Roy Reynolds janaging Director 16129 Challis St. —d'RT Strategies Fountain Valley, CA 92708 2 roy.reynolds@prtstrategies.com Office: 714.531.7076 www.vrtstrategies.com CC' Mayor Keith Bohr 3 JUL 2 7 Z009 PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT (PRT) DETAILE Huntington Beach Version 1.3 updated February,2009 PLANNING DEPT, State-of-the-Art Technology for Re-Vitalization, Business Development and an Environmentally Friendly Solution for Traffic and Congestion in Huntington Beach PRT is an elevated fixed-guideway transportation system that supports 3-6 person driverless vehicles. .a Via very sophisticated and secure wireless computer control, PRT vehicles are designed for on-demand 3 T =r � point-to-point individualized private transit,to/from � .. station portals designed with sidings"offline"from the I> main guideway. PRT is connected in closed loops, : i14 tip making its implementation extremely scalable. As an elevated system,ground impact is not significant as pylons are only sunk 90 feet apart to support the metal + guideways. Guideways can share street,freeway corridors and flood channels. It can be attached to structures like multi-story buildings or infrastructure, e.g. bridges. Vehicle movement is unidirectional on the loops, with switching between them and on/off station sidings controlled with centralized system servers and onboard computers. Guideway can also be `doubled up'on Y-shaped pylons for bi-directional movement, multiplying throughput and increasing capacity with no additional at-grade impact. In operation, PRT vehicles would be made available in sufficient quantities so that riders will find them waiting at station portals—reversing the traditional light rail and bus models which operate fixed routes and schedules. Vehicle costs are expected to range in mid-five figures,vs. mid-six figure buses and seven-figure light rail cars, allowing adequate quantities to be placed in service as soon as stations and guideway loops are constructed. PRT will cost 20-25 percent less than light rail (LRT). Unlike conven- tional transit,vehicles not in use are gathered on the offline station sidings awaiting riders. Maintenance facilities will still be required,but significant space to park idle vehicles is not needed as these assets are more valuable at stations pending use. The offline station concept is key to understanding PRT as rides are non-stop, bypassing stations on the way directly to the rider's destination. On debarking,the vehicle can then wait for new rider(s) at that station,or if it's determined that another station on the grid is short or void of vehicles,or has more queued riders than waiting vehicles, it can be sent empty to that station. This"resource leveling"is unique to PRT and can't be accomplished without the extensive automation which managesAs the system,the vehicle resources, safety and security. Unlike " xk _ last century's LRT and bus systems, PRT is truly state-of-the-art automated transportation. With its computerization and absence of drivers, PRT can operate 24/7/365. PRT technology employs electric, emission- free magnetic linear induction motors, a very simple propulsion system characterized by a limited number of moving parts and PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com a e o non-friction braking. Current designs use on-board switch mechanisms to choose between guideways or allow the vehicle to turn off the main guideway onto a station siding. These simple,foolproof switches are unique to this transit mode, and allow PRT the flexibility to negotiate short radius turns and complicated guideway routings—unlike,for example,a monorail which is relegated to a simple, inflexible linear route or single closed loop (as Disneyland's Monorail attraction is designed). Fewer moving parts also cause the vehicle to be very quiet and highly reliable in operation. Other points are key to PRT design and use: • Small, lightweight vehicles do not require massive guideway structures as would elevated LRT or monorail. Support pylons are approximately two-feet in diameter and single guideway may be as narrow as one meter. • Offline stations dramatically increase throughput. By not stopping at every station between departure and destination, a PRT vehicle's average speed is also then its top speed. _ Above grade, without interference from surface traffic and having no need for street traffic signaling,speeds of 30-40 mph can be achieved, non-stop. This means minimal actual transit time for riders and far greater efficiencies with vehicle resources, making them available much more quickly for additional users. • Secure Internet-based wireless connections between vehicles,stations and human supervisors mean onboard audio and video are feasible for rider interaction and security, and that immediate notification of trouble can be sent directly to local law enforcement. Onboard and station video minimizes vandalism and petty crime,especially as the system will usually know the rider's name per their recorded fare payment data. • Offline station design means any number of stations can be added to the grid with NO decrease in throughput—vehicles bypass stations for which they're not destined as all rides are non-stop. This also means much lower ride times compared to LRT which makes all station stops on its linear route, and local buses which make multiple rider-requested stops,and are subject to traffic controls and congestion delays. Unlike LRT, monorail and bus systems,adding PRT station stops increases service levels,flexibility,performance,financial appeal and overall usability. • Small PRT stations can accommodate individual buildings,strip malls and intersections;larger stations accommodate multiple, simultaneous vehicle }� loading/unloading. • As the PRT grid grows, multiple paths to destinations develop, allowing computer routing around least congested segments that will be faster, shorter or are out of service for maintenance or unpowered. In a power outage, vehicles are programmed to reach the closest available station using onboard batteries. • Even in small inter-connected loops, PRT is useful for transit in a distinct area,e.g.a Hyatt H Downtown circulator. Unlike OCTA's 2003 CenterLine light rail project, PRT doesn't require an "all in"commitment to be valuable and can be built incrementally larger as funding is identified. PRT would work well as a municipal or regional system, and as well operate on a college or business campus (e.g. Boeing). • PRT would prove reasonable in two areas that concern transit authorities and the general public; transport for schools and the elderly/mobility-challenged(which OCTA's Access system now expensively serves). PRT stations built at school sites would decrease transport time and costs for students, staff and faculty, and also then becomes an access point in a certain residential PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com Page 2 of 6 neighborhoods. PRT will be ADA-compliant for the handicapped, readily providing transport to shopping and medical facilities. • Except for its onboard computer, an empty PRT vehicle need not consume any power. • Within the contiguous guideway grid, no vehicle or route transfers are necessary. • Every PRT rider is guaranteed a seat as no standing is feasible within the vehicle. • All vehicles must accommodate wheelchairs and bicycles;therefore 100%of the PRT fleet serves all users. No segregation of vehicles is necessary for special needs. • Non-scheduled services mean no missed rides. When sufficient vehicles are available for anticipated needs, contrary to the commonly accepted mass transit model, riders need not wait for service and can board vehicles that are already waiting at stations. Crowds do not form if =` f sufficient vehicles are available,therefore no waiting is .N4:50 Ouwa.O - necessary. • No route maps or schedules are required published fora PRT system. Route maps will be posted at portals for station selection and would be publicized on a system website. In certain situations, reserving a vehicle or summoning one via cellular telephone may be possible • Like sports stadiums, PRT station names might be sold or licensed for ongoing revenue where they're not built by a private owner. • With direct, point-to-point rides, missed stops due to a rider's sleeping or inattention are impossible. • Unclean or vandalized vehicles may be rejected by riders at the station portals. These vehicles are then dispatched for maintenance at a system facility. • In-vehicle and in-station video monitoring will identify vandals for interception by law enforcement. As rides are paid by an issued pass or credit/debit card,vandals are potentially apprehended via payment data or pass identification. Video evidence of an incident is stored for access by law enforcement or judicial authorities. [Note that all new OCTA buses are equipped with multiple internal and external video cameras feeding an onboard recorder to deal with real and staged incidents.] • With emphasis toward the use of credit/debit plastic,and pre-sold passes("rechargeable"via an Internet account as online postage and toll roads are handled now),cash handling on the system is minimized,but still accommodated via station kiosks accepting currency. Standalone stations large enough to rent space to ground-floor businesses could as well accommodate ATMs. • Individual vehicles might be branded for advertising revenue, but it's unlikely that a similar practice would beu+ acceptable for the fixed guideway. However,the layering of photovoltaic -(solar) panels on guideway ' surfaces is feasible for revenue generation from electricity created and fed into the local Southern California Edison grid per their existing solar programs. PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com Page 3 of 6 • Trips are charged by the vehicle, like a taxi, not on a per person basis as multiple riders are not easily segregated. This encourages vehicle sharing and car pool-like use to single destinations. • Employer participation programs based on PRT usage are very feasible,encouraging off-site facility parking where available. Conventional thinking and experience often assumes that PRT does not compare to light rail or buses in passenger carrying capacity. These assumptions fail to consider that PRT vehicles operate in quantities that are dependent only on the funding to acquire them. Without drivers, as many as can be placed on the guideway are put into use to achieve the average speeds discussed here. Unlike buses or LRT, except for maintenance and cleaning, PRT vehicles are always ready at system stations and not parked in a depot facility. Computer control will allow vehicle :` headways of four seconds or less, l % causing very high vehicle density on the 403s_;.. guideways. As average speeds are far - greater than buses or LRT can achieve, t :•: `"r vehicle resources are therefore more `C productive,carrying as many or more _ riders than conventional transit in shorter trip times. No time is lost to surface traffic situations. Operations are then very predictable and,can be precisely planned for peak hour situations-for example,a usage database will be quickly accumulated to track boardings/deboardings at all station portals. Those stations requiring more vehicles than others during"rush hour"can then have vehicles accumulated at them as the control computers balance loads according to user preferences and ridership. Special situations are also served -when events are scheduled, vehicles can be accumulated at the appropriate stations to accommodate "surge"loads. This is infeasible for LRT and, if available, requires buses and drivers to be specially assigned. PRT can also accommodate increasing demand by simply building additional guideway along other routings to provide more paths. Since elevated guideway is less subject to difficult right-of-way acquisi- tion than light rail, it's more easily,quickly and far less expensively built. PRT is also more forgiving if it's ever built where it shouldn't be-if politically undesirable, or ridership estimates don't materialize, unlike LRT or monorail it can be removed and its guideway and vehicles simply re-used elsewhere. Certain PRT vendors offer"sawtooth"(diagonal) ,.a.tan r,,d*taymax for tKrr smttoos—linter and sawrooat. vehicle parking at stations. This saves space, increases throughput and especially allows vehicle segregation. A private vehicle can then wait for its passenger without effecting or ��'� slowing regular public operations, or different Mo sized or purposed (e.g. mail,parcel delivery, supply, baggage carrying) vehicles can be mixed on the system. 86 m PRT manufacturers state costs in very broad Fig, terms,but with its lightweight guideway structure Mast a}stems am planned kr Ham swims in wbbch vehKks advance on one won and small vehicles,any estimate will find PRT uwL in odder to save station specs n to recommended to use d.sa,=tts o to the FAR less expensive than light rail. Our highest mates pos0tions ret alWMng and boarding passengers,VAia-&p-as— estimates find single guideway PRT being passenam are rea#and now vaNcles advance hom*mkingposamsath:ctttcom. constructed for$20-30 million/mile, and even t11 less on undemanding terrain. By comparison, A costs for OCTA's CenterLine light rail system were to be$125 million/mile in 2003 dollars. PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com Page 4�6 ) AN ELEVATED SOLUTION e With traffic and congestion steadily growing in the area and no realistic opportunities or funding to widen existing arterials or add new freeways, building above grade will have the least impact. As described above,the grid layout of the arterials also suggests that linear solutions like LRT are undesirable if more flexible technology could be identified. These major ' arterials are also lined with businesses which desire commuter and k visitor traffic compared to residential neighborhoods which shun it. To use Beach Blvd.,the River and any other north-south or east-west arterials,an elevated solution is most easily built as existing right-of-way can be utilized (using the shoulders, sidewalks and medians of the street infrastructure itself). Simply put,elevating transit occupies a free, unused dimension AND eliminates potential interactions with automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians. The arterial street grid is appreciated for its efficiency, but unfortunately it's also known for high average vehicle speeds and occasionally serious and sometimes fatal accidents. An at-grade solution on the grid simply exacerbates these situations, but PRT avoids them and requires no conventional traffic controls. An elevated solution would prove a must for using the River as well. A number of arterials need to be crossed, and accessibility to guideways needs to be prevented by vandals,the immature,the simply curious and those with nefarious intentions. Elevated solutions are safer, more secure and controlled. AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SOLUTION While OCTA has contributed to enhanced air quality with its low-emission CNG bus fleet and Toyota hybrid staff vehicles, an electrically-powered solution would be even more appropriate given public and press awareness of climate change,peak oil and carbon footprint issues. The previous Mayor of Huntington Beach is also a well known environmentalist and often speaks to these issues in her role with the Southern California Association of Governments. She's also been a PRT proponent, having spoken this year to an industry conference in Ithaca, NY. Any solution which can support or utilize alternative energy sources,like solar power,should be favorably evaluated for this opportunity. Noted above,any PRT guideway,where cost-justified, is potentially mounted with solar panels for the generation of electricity back into the Edison grid,offsetting that that it uses and creating an everyday revenue stream for the system. A SOLUTION APPEALING TO THE NON-TRANSIT DEPENDENT Surveyed this year, OCTA system ridership is 2/3rds Hispanic,and is acknowledged to support a transit-dependent user base. We believe a r_, middle-class demographic,typical of the City's T "� population and the in-and out-of-state tourists it seeks to attract,would use a transit system based on a different model—one which mimics private transport, i.e. a taxicab, where a reasonably priced v ride needn't be shared, and performance was equivalent to or better than a private automobile. SHARING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE Orange County is criss-crossed with over 230 miles of flood control channels. The Santa Ana River is the most obvious of them, and with its flat, wide street-level berms on both edges, it is ideal to build PRT guideways upon, outside the existing (and precedent-setting)OCTA bike paths. Multiple guideways t PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com Page 5 of 6 could easily be accommodated, and the street and bridge crossings that intersect the River become good opportunities for building stations. For the City's plans in the Edison right-of-way . along the River between Adams Ave. and Pacific Coast Highway, PRT could be the means -r for moving users of the planned Santa Ana River Parkway. Any flood channel could support at least a single elevated PRT guideway running along side it. Stations are also potentially located where channels intersect surface streets. In these =` examples, it's also recognized that significant NIMBY resistance might be expected. It is also conceivable that PRT could be operating in freeway medians and along shoulders if sufficient space can be acquired. Advantaging the diminutive design of PRT vehicles,where a guideway must cross a multi- lane freeway,there's good potential for routing it and the vehicle be/ow.the freeway lanes.in the void alongside sidewalks as illustrated in our PowerPoint presentation. PRT guideway offers other potential. Given its elevated infrastructure,the concealment of electrical, telephone and/or CATV cabling might be engineered, replacing exposed pole and cable systems along arterials. Municipal WiFi might be mounted along the guideway for revenue generation to the City. PRT Strategies www.prtstrategies.com Page:6.f 6 � �r-�t���GS�t��'_'i"'�a,i" ` 3� � 't _'-.,`,� ��u��"�•{" £'t$.'r�`$xis' }'" s ��'�j`"�' PI�S�'a�����diE� E� a rrtaa.t. n<.r-e;r.,fi s r•:..�.€� '� �`" :� .3 i. x- s �r, � .z; ss a r -- :t December 19, 2008 I (( }11 Ms. Rosemary Medel tl Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach JUL 2 7 2009 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Medel: Please accept this letter and its attachments as comments to your Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue Draft Specific Plan. We are a local consultancy which has conducted significant research into alternative transportation systems to enhance public transit usage for commuters and tourists in Orange County. We noted that Freedman Tung and Bottomley accomplished a very credible review of future development potential in the Beach/Edinger corridors. They are to be congratulated for such a thorough job; however, we also noted there was little said about transit and congestion issues along these two highly trafficked arterials. We'd wish to offer three enhancements to the FTB plan in context with a recommendation that the City consider the attached as an opportunity to pioneer the development of a high-tech public transit system to be used by the middle-class demographic you wish to draw and accommodate in the corridors as tourists, local workers and retail shoppers. Unlike the ordinary OCTA bus system which only services the transit-dependent on both streets, Personal Rapid Transit(PRT)is attractive to middle-class users as the fully computerized transit it offers is analogous to a taxi ride—private,point-to-point,safe and fast. Elevated PRT stations placed within both corridors can be publically or privately owned,and will accommodate wheelchairs and bicycles. PRT is very environmentally friendly as it's electrically powered,virtually noiseless and emission-free. We've included our specific technical recommenda- tions for PRT in a separately attached document. 1)Advocate Transit Oriented Development(Top) A comprehensively planned transit system will create significant opportunities for development and re- development in the corridors. Since NO form of at-grade conventional transit,e.g. light rail or bus rapid transit,is adaptable to these corridors,the City can implement PRT for both,with additional extensions to deal with the opportunities we discuss below and in the PowerPoint. PRT can create a City-oriented grid network, linking Bella Terra through Five Points to the Downtown—a transit system focused on the middle-class demographic which does not ride the OCTA bus routes which serve the corridors. PRT would SEED development in the corridors where stations can strategically placed to attract busi- nesses or serve workplaces. E.g.,consider certain intersections which have less than desirable retail situations—a proactive planning approach would create a PRT station at these locations which then attracts more desirable business,or a redevelopment as commuter/tourist traffic is able to reach the site. PRT along both arterials captures the commuter/tourist element in the corridors, allowing them to park at only one location and then transit anywhere from the beach to Bella Terra just as one would use a horizontal elevator. TOD thrives where these components are provided: Walkable design(1/4 mile station radius)with the pedestrian as the highest priority Station nodes proximate to a mixture of uses,e.g.office,residential,retail,and civic High density,high-quality development within 10-minute walk to/from station Other transit system nodes including buses and trains Support for bicycles Retailers who embrace and incent transit users, e.g. with discounts,coupons Tax credits,zoning considerations where infrastructure is privately developed Ms.R.Medel Page 2 Public/Private Partnerships(PPP) TOD leverages significant opportunity for PPPs. Conventional bus transit systems operating (at deficits) in the County today are government owned and run,with no opportunity, need or reason for private investment. A City PRT network creates multiple opportunities to partly fund the system and support operating costs where developers and hoteliers create desirable station portals and generate passenger traffic: • PRT station portals can be constructed by a property owner,in either standalone configura- tions or built into existing structures, creating retail traffic to the location. In another example, a hotel could fund and build a station for the use of its own guests and visitors. • PRT vehicles can be purchased or leased and uniquely configured and branded for private operation. Using the hotel example,their own vehicles could be moving their guests to/from local attractions,shopping and the airport if the guideway was extended to it. • PRT station portals on public property create focused opportunities,drawing tourists and visitors to the location to reach nearby businesses or work places,or cause them to be built as customers and workers can be delivered to the site. 2)Support High-Density Housing With your City Council's recent approvals of very high-density housing west of the Bella Terra Center,the implementation of PRT in the area could significantly reduce traffic and congestion if this horizontal elevator were used to connect apartment dwellers and condominium owners to local retailers and attract- ions, local employment,the beach and as suggested below,other transit nodes like Metrolink. The City is allowing much higher residential densities in the Edinger/Gothard area which will create additional traffic and cause grander needs for parking. OCTA's transit connections in the area are limited to only ordinary bus routes at the Golden West transportation hub some distance from the Ripcurl, Village and Murdy Commons developments. Said above,we're also skeptical that these buses are suitable for use by the demographic expected to be renting or buying in the neighborhood,or shopping at Bella Terra. Public/Private Partnerships The housing designed for the area is nearly perfect for PRT, especially where station portals might be built into structures for private access to/from the building or into nearby parking structures: • Providing acceptable transit for these tenants and owners potentially reduces on-site parking requirements. For example,the developer might be encouraged to build more revenue- producing space versus parking if zoning was relaxed for less automobile space where transit was substituted. • Increases in floor space, and therefore, apartment or condo unit value,eventually translate to increases in assessments and property tax revenue. Discussed below, a PRT connection could also be made to the Buena Park Metrolink station,funded by Measure M,then linking professionals and white collar workers these developments will attract into Los Angeles. We'd anticipate a direct, non-stop PRT ride to Buena Park would require only 15-20 minutes, in commute hours with no vehicle parking then needed. • The availability of the private, non-stop rides unique to PRT will increases property values by increasing the attractiveness of building and unit. As suggested above, here again is an opportunity for private investment in a transit system which produces benefit for both public and private sector interests as resale values are enhanced and tax revenues increased. • We also see the strong potential of extending the PRT grid west to the Boeing facility at Bolsa St. It's assumed that Boeing workers would be attracted to the Bella Terra housing, especially if a fast,direct transit system was available. Neither is it a"stretch"to envision PRT as a campus connector system on the nearly mile square Boeing property. i�� Ms.R.Medel Page 3 3)Attract Tourists and Conventioneers from the Anaheim&Disney Resorts Huntington Beach has a unique opportunity to exploit PRT to connect its beach attractions, Downtown and Pier area to tap over 27 million tourists and convention attendees who annually visit Orange County and the City of Anaheim. A number of alignments can be designed to reach both named Resorts areas (most importantly,their 100+hotels where their Visitors Bureau believes stays will be extended if an additional day might be spent in HB). Per the attached PowerPoints,we see the potential of using the Santa Ana River(already an OCTA-controlled bike path route)to directly link Anaheim's planned ARTIC (Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, see www.articinfo.com)facility to the Hyatt and Hilton Hotels,the Pacific City and Strand development and the Downtown merchants and restaurants. If PRE proves as successful as we know it will be,other routings to Anaheim (e.g. Beach+Katella, Edinger+Harbor) are feasible as well, using the existing arterial grid. PubliclPrivate Partnerships HB's world-class beach and area attractions draw over 13 million visitors annually—to increase this visitation without additional vehicle traffic and provision of parking: • Other than very expensive taxi trips and rental cars(easily$50-100/round trip), no public conveyance exists which allows Anaheim's visitors to transit to other areas of interest in the County. PRT along the River could deliver groups of up to six riders/vehicle from ARTIC to HB in approximately 15 minutes,for an estimated fare of less than$10. It's not at all expected these same visitors would use the public bus system to visit the beach area. • Discussed above,the four to five beach area hotels, especially including the Hilton and Hyatt, could be moving guests directly to/from Disneyland,the Convention Center and/or Honda Center using public or private PRT vehicles. Private vehicles are computer-segregated from the public fleet, anticipated to be more luxurious and summoned for a return trip by cell phone text message, room passkey or private code. • Retailers and restaurateurs could readily advertise PRT rides to attract customers to their venues, perhaps subsidizing the transit or discounting their offerings to attract these visitors from their hotels. Hotels are very skilled at this sort of marketing. • It's conceivable that a wide area PRT grid could also reach John Wayne Airport,creating the means to bring hotel guests in from the airport and returning them. Manned hotel shuttles are then unneeded for this costly service. Baggage is easily accommodated in the PRT vehicle,or sent via a handler in a separate vehicle. As it's driverless and completely automated, PRT also operates 24/7 with services then available during all hours of airport operation. • Newport Beach and Costa Mesa's South Coast Plaza have been unwilling to consider PRT— HB could exclusively implement it for major competitive advantage_ Bella Terra is reachable from anywhere on Beach Blvd. and could be made particularly attractive to Downtown hotel guests. • The River routing strategy above also touches Fountain Valley's Costco store,a popular attraction for foreign hotel visitors. As well, Fry's Electronics is nearby and an example where the two cities might collaborate on system routing and some level of cooperation and revenue sharing might occur between the Chambers of Commerce. The proximity of the Westminster Mall is a similar example as it's easily reached with a PRT guideway extension from Edinger. • Like the Anaheim hotels,we suspect the beach hotels have difficulty in attracting service staff given the commuting distance and parking requirements. As PRT proliferates,fast 24/7/365 transit opportunities are created for this support staff to reach these work places. r-� Ms.R.Medel Page 4 FUNDING PRT It is unlikely that the City has uncommitted infrastructure money to finance a PRT implementation as ambitious as that proposed here, but it's also very encouraging that other resources exist to explore for funding: Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) OCTA's Measure M transportation tax brochure boldly states"fresh thinking will be awarded". Renewed in 2006 for a 2010-2040 term, Measure M (aka M2)supports opportunities to fund potentially large PRT implementations. OCTA is supporting its Metrolink expansion strategy with two M2 Projects to encourage the development of"connector"systems to its stations. Geographically, Huntington Beach is miles distant from Metrolink's dozen stations. It's acknowledged that the expense,travel time required and inconvenience in reaching the closest stations cause Metrolink to be unattractive for HB commuters since too much time is required to reach their constrained parking by car, particularly during peak hours, and no fast and demographically-attractive public transit is available. Metrolink is also too distant to create opportunities for drawing visitors and tourists to the beach,the Downtown,the hotels and shopping opportunities. In the attached, we've documented THREE opportunities for PRT to connect to the: • Anaheim Station (to redevelop into ARTIC) via the Santa Ana River • Santa Ana Station via the River or Edinger+Fairview,eastward along the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way through the Civic Center(a major employment center and common destination for area residents) • Buena Park Station north along Beach Blvd.through Westminster, Stanton,Anaheim and Buena Park,all cities which would benefit from a PRT alignment servicing their retail businesses and work places From OCTA's website, nearly$1.3 billion may be available to construct PRT in available public right- of-ways and the County flood channels. We believe the City can approach the Authority(consider also that HB's Mayor Pro Tern and the 2"d District County Supervisor are OCTA Board members)and successfully be allocated funding from both these M2"Projects"(text extracted from www.octa.net, bold emphasis ours): Project S: High Frequency Metrolink Service Description: Frequent service in the Metrolink corridor provides a high capacity transit system linking communities within the central core of Orange County.This project will establish a competitive program for local jurisdictions to broaden the reach of the rail system to other activity centers and communities.Proposal for extensions must be developed and supported by local jurisdictions and will be evaluated against well-defined and well- TO RIVMI*NW known criteria as follows: • Traffic congestion relief • Project readiness,with priority given to projects that can be implemented within the first five years of the Plan • Local funding commitments and the availability of right-of- way • Proven ability to attract other financial partners,both public and private ;: 4 • Cost-effectiveness ry' • Proximity to jobs and population centers • Regional as well as local benefits Metrolink rail lines • Ease and simplicity of connections In Orange Cotes � P Y • Compatible,approved land uses • Safe and modem technology • A sound,long-term operating plan sens�.m.,k•- T°aceenfdfe Ms.R.Medel Page 5 This project shall not be used to fund transit routes that are not directly connected to or that would be redundant to the core rail service on the Metrolink corridor.The emphasis shall be on expanding access to the core rail system and on establishing connections to communities and major activity centers that are not immediately adjacent to the Metrolink corridor.It is intended that multiple transit projects be funded through a competitive process and no single project may be awarded all of the funds under this program. These connections may include a variety of transit technologies such as conventional bus,bus rapid transit or high capacity rail transit systems as long as they can be fully integrated and provide seamless transition for the users. Cost: The estimated cost to implement this program over thirty years is$1,000.0 million. Project V. Community Based Transit/Circulators Description: This project will establish a competitive program for local jurisdictions to develop local bus transit services such as community based circulators,shuttles and bus trolleys that complement regional bus and rail services,and meet needs in areas not adequately served by regional transit. Projects will need to meet performance criteria for ridership,connection to bus and rail services,and financial viability to be considered for funding.All projects must be competitively bid,and they cannot duplicate or compete with existing transit services. Cost: The estimated cost of this project is$226.5 million. Clearly,there are opportunities above to fund PRT with significant M2 funding which, to our knowledge, is not committed elsewhere. Further, "Project T"should also be evaluated for its funding potential. Federal and State Programs Federal funds can be pursued via various programs, e.g. Small Starts, Smart Starts and New Starts. Congressman Rohrabacher's office (located at Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, HB) is familiar to our firm and can be asked to assist in pursuit of this federal money. State Senator Harman (former HB Councilman and Mayor) sits on the State Senate Transportation Committee and can be requested to assist in pursuit of funds from the recently passed$40 billion State Infrastructure Bonds and other potential sources. Public/Private Partnerships We've strongly emphasized above that private sector investment is important and believed attainable Via our recommendations. Taking a"stakeholder"positions commits local apartment/condomini- um/office developers, hoteliers and retailers to partly own the system, exploit and encourage its use. The four major medical facilities in the corridors should also be invited to participate as PRT is an excellent transport for their clientele. Private investment in PRT is in property—that is,actually building a two-story station on a parking lot or a portal into a building structure. The retailer(and especially"big.box"operations like Wal-Mart and Target, both vital Beach Blvd.operations) benefit from direct customer access without need to support additional parking. For their size, Bella Terra and Five Points could support multiple stations above their parking tots, connected to parking structures and/or directly accessible to the second floors (or first or second story roofs) of their retailers. Hoteliers as stakeholders are discussed above, and in Huntington Beach it's obvious and important to note that the Hyatt, Hilton and the three other new beach operations are unique for their locations —of high value and price due to proximity with a world-class surfing beach, but remote from anywhere else in the County where their guests may wish to visit or from which they wish to draw. PRT along Beach Blvd. allows their high net worth clientele access to Bella Terra shopping and dozens of restaurants and entertainment venues via a private conveyance. PRT for the hotels would Ms.R.Medel Page 6 also serve as a local circulator to move their guests to/from the downtown area—a somewhat lengthy walk, and an inconvenient one in less than perfect weather. Supermarkets may also be candidates for PRT portals. And,after proven successful, PRT can act to attract additional businesses to the City—for example, a recent controversy caused a Costco to not build an HB store, but other properties suitable for them would be made more attractive if PRT guide- way could be extended to accommodate their needs. Further,the potential use of the many miles of flood control channels in the area should not be ignored as right-of-ways for guideway. Maps are included in the attached material which illustrate a number of channels which might be used where guideway pylons could be imbedded alongside the water channel. These channels are unused for anything but emergency water runoff, and operating in them where visual intrusion is not an issue could cause their upgrade as well. These underused resources are under County and City control, and Huntington Beach has miles of them. Note that we've also included a slide in our PowerPoint re.the use of PRT for goods movement. A PRT vehicle is perfectly sized for moving a'/.—ton pallet of material. This suggests freight-focused applications for potentially supplying certain businesses—where the guideway can be built to or accessed by a distribution point, certain businesses,e.g.supermarkets and"big box"retailers might substitute some of their shipping with PRT versus UPS or FedEx or their own truck traffic. This might be especially applicable to the U.S. Postal Service as well considering the distributive nature of their business. SUMMARY Rosemary, we believe we've presented a very credible argument here for Personal Rapid Transit to be taken seriously by Huntington Beach. Employing PRT for these various applications could dramatically enhance the value of the Beach/Edinger corridors and encourage faster re-development of both arterials with new businesses and work places. We've also offered three funding strategies,the largest being real and Orange County-specific under the direct control of local politicians with direct links in the City. With PRT, Huntington Beach would also be seen a leader in the environmental area by employing a GREEN, non-emitting state-of-the-art transit system to reduce traffic congestion and lessen dependency on the automobile for short trips. We'd appreciate the opportunity to present these ideas to your planning group, FTB,the City Council, Chamber of Commerce and Downtown BID. We'd appreciate your feedback after New Year's and would be happy to answer any questions you might have it you'd please contact me directly. Thanks for the opportunity to provide our comments to the Beach/Edinger Draft Specific Plan. Best regards, Roy Reynolds Managing Director 16129 Challis St. Phi' Strategies Fountain Valley, CA 92708 roy.reynolds@prtstrategies.com Office: 714.531.7076 www.prtstrategies.com Cell: 714.206.3878 cc: Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator, Huntington Beach Mr. Michael Freedman, Principal, Freedman Tung and Bottomley Mr. Mike Grumet, Chairman, HB Chamber of Commerce Ms. Connie Pedenko, HB Downtown BID Mr.Steve Bone, HB Conference and Visitor's Bureau February 3, 2009 HOC )) O F� V LC,L�J Ms. Ketlee Fritzal lfZ` Deputy Director, Economic Development Dept. City of Huntington Beach JUL 2 7 2009 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA 92648 PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Fritzal: Per my conversation last week with Rosemary Medel, she suggested I share the enclosed with you. Some time ago, I met with your Department staff to discuss the potential of Personal Rapid Transit(PRT) for Huntington Beach. The enclosed is updated and goes into much greater detail on • PRT as a collector/distributor system operating along the Santa Ana River to potentially tap 27+ million annual tourists visiting the Anaheim and Disney Resorts, bringing them sans automobiles to your beach attractions, hotels and the Downtoi n BID. • Creating Transit Oriented Development opportunities in the Beach and Edinger corridors, fostering retail development at those locations identified by the Freedman study by creating PRT stations where new or upgraded businesses can be made to thrive. • Reducing traffic and congestion, and mitigating beach parking issues, by creating opportuni- ties to reach your local businesses, employers and the Metrolink with a non-polluting electrified state-of-the-art transit system that eliminates the need for automobile commuting. In our material, we thoroughly cover the funding opportunities that locally exist to build this system. We believe your Council and Planning Commission could be interested in this if it were supported by your Department and the local business community. We know the BID is looking for direction from the City. In addition to our response to Rosemary re. the Beach/Edinger study, we also intend offer similar commentary to the Downtown Specific Plan. PRT is viable now, has been proven in revenue service and has been declared"ready for primetime" by the City of San Jose. Our most promising vendor has recently been safety-certified by the Swedish Rail Authority and is working with my firm to explore opportunities in the United States. We have recently approached the City of Anaheim and Disney for consideration as an alternative for a collector/distributor system in their Resort areas. I'd appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to go over this material in detail and will be in contact next week. Thanks for your consideration and interest. Best regards, Roy Reynolds Managing Director 16129 Challis St. PRT Strategies Fountain Valley, CA 92708 roy.reynolds@prtstrategies.com Office: 714.531.7076 www.prtstrategies.com Cell: 714-206.3878 11' dr 75 a a�x Alt n '�'' �v+ z; K� sr � x r s ck Lu a n t as � ' ...t� ��•. t � �w ,� r a1, ' ti ��� stiLio-..s t5yn� Atr � q+�r 3� � {' an4,1Rj 5 d s > x � Personal RapidTransit ( PRT • On-demand, driverless J • Point-to-Point, no intermediate stops • Private unnecessary to share • ®ffline stations ;tt . • Private 3 - 6 person vehicle • All electric, emission-free • ADA-compliant • Minimal footprint • 24/7/365 availability, no timetables • Non-competitive with roadway • Far less cost than LRT, HRT • Eminent Domain issues unlikely • Video monitored for safety, A 21st Century Green Solution security 66Ready for primetime" -- City of San Jose Buildable INTO S or ONTO Roofs 4" , A-1- .. . yL 1' ( s}a 4 I �i t Yu i - � k *aL F;l F Yb 1 �� {tF! -9.�{,'"• �Frr .,� �. ,^n o�,9�`T'9 �„, S,yut'. 4� f, � �"�i`1:yt •i,�y ��rt2 3 .. 3 Small , Fast, High Capacity ' Network distributes, balances loads • Engaged vehicles bypass offline stations `; • No at-grade crossings Uncompetitive with street congestion Bypasses traffic signals e • Travels undelayed to destination • Two second or less vehicle headways • Immediate loading, unloading • Guideway, vehicle capacity easily added • Completely computerized • Automatic billing, variable pricing maximizes use and revenue v PRT Strategy for Huntington Beach • Focus on a middle-class demographic -- shopper, commuter, office/medical worker and tourist population — Draw the non-transit dependent from private automobiles to private PRT vehicles — Create a HORIZONTAL ELEVATOR linking existing and new retail, office, hotel, medical sites • Park once,visit many sites(department store analogy) • Develop, encourage and support Public/Private Partnerships — Focus on Transit Oriented Development with retailers, hoteliers, commercial and residential property developers • TOD causes new development, redevelopment where stations are placed — Demonstrates City's commitment to overall plan — Attracts customers,clients to station locations — Offsets some parking requirements, reduces arterial congestion — Allow High-Density Residential Developments @ Bella Terra (Edinger/Gothard) reduced accommodation for automobiles • Zone for less parking, more revenue producing space where stations placed or built-in to structures • Accommodate indigenous commuter populations — Extend west to Boeing facilities — Extend to Metrolink using OCTA funds • Mitigate arterial traffic congestion, environmental impact • Build in alignments off the arterials, e.g. exploit UP Right-of-Way, alleys, flood channels, other city streets — Attract Anaheim & Disney Resorts for tourist visits to beach, Pier, Downtown retailers and restaurants • Use PRT to connect to ARTIC (Metrolink&Amtrak), Disneyland, Convention Center, 100+Anaheim area hotels via Santa Ana River • Incent ancillary opportunities to visit Five Points, Bella Terra • Reverse the strategy—privately transport Hyatt/Hilton/Pacific City/Strand visitors to Anaheim — Extending hotel stays — Eventually connect to John Wayne -��y .,.1 `9ffi' % g E .t J//��,,.`.,{. �.,.W T„ .„; :s:';;,iwrJr �'+ .:w,;!"/,,,•, "�' jP' ''' K 3 5,; E D,11,,Ii.;,E.t!f'' E {„r,is..r.,..!` I 1 'xa^-p,l �i�i. i, t ''�)4 •L: sf"$a .' 't5:+ /.: �' 't! ,r- ,➢.:: ��aT`i'rd-A:.5 I 3 V� .'I Sv Y, .,�-;.- <�•.. .� "'fie.<: L< ''iy.`;�! :t`L• ,�. (s?'C '�. ;4� �;'�" x.�.�'^ - `*r"�'.,,r , 'i�'*� "IN,\:� '+/�('•� E{ ::$.^u=",`:� ;'1;,"` r,. 1';' ' :� �r C '�';�� 'i... ,r,kfi. s.i',' r" 1 .'13'r-y r r �p „�! li� ;',; '� '• ;.\Y . \ �3k,.;X.'{u', it '?I• ;:• f�>� `47 J„ G' %.a w v s,. t'"t-...44� k�3�A,';;;r �'• '?"' (,'y� �,ass b7i A ' i -. a= � 74` H}� ." i . -.5' , yr• k <�- \{ r r .. > �,f^'^,,. I, c.�., 1,7�++t•-'-,, q�.�„��,;` t '* � 4'�,,,. � � S�'8`�"li i 'x- ,� '"��,1 �i :�L>C,` ���, 't,.,„ r,; - 41�.114 ' iwA Calr;7 1, ,� <,.5 per}r s.w ict d Ir! „'TA]dlt �e VfA -J:[tn.. =. ,3 i:l Res ,."'"`�;:', -'�l' ? �'-,'t...M. `az>`sa .i;>"' :; .:v'`'' tt t `<.- •ii�"°'4,e,:_��.. i �.,`" t ',�f: „�'A.c i;" c".�4;;yr., tia•%itl.x`a� .i•%M ��. ra:J.: ,.I,`�'%'",a�;- .'��v..�r+?:;; '�.,�f_`" �`'� ,,.,, "17- xc'.a � �' �j>,IIv I •i5G ry)dLn�C$ ».�a' dfi�,�>F,i�. .,,,Zy, � �a-. '�,' ..s '�',,, *x�ii a=z���t �, fpi�� .z :,5�„�+ ?",, �" „�i'dti s,.:,.,� eal^=���s�•"�z4��. a-�a �z,,^»�`,', ,.� 3,'�'�� ;E � �: 'i. �+. z,..�;P �' t?a';''�k, � �.&. er;.<`'�' - C, is � II �-x,�•, ry �r:.�,,:o �..,,t?v;�,_..,...,,. ,x'�_.,W kr�,, ,�?k;-d�4t, �i' �'. �). '+"� .�iS,�a, '�ra_ ""�4•K"' ;`akta;`a,�,� �, _...,_.a+f �i' C ,�.-.�.%-.,-1'- ..,�`,i��,�� ',v 'a S Why PRT Ca Succeed • Connects all three major FTB foci -- Bella Terra, Five Points, Other alignment opportunities Downtown plus Hi-Density Apt/Condo Developments — PRT can be built in alignments off the arterials — Elevated guideways causes no street congestion Alleys — Future opportunity if Costco et al built in area Flood channels — Supports Golden West College commuting Other city streets • Mitigates further street congestion, parking issues — Could share Union Pacific Right-of-Way • Fundable GREEN — OCTA — Completely electric, emission-free • Meets$1 B Measure M2, Project S stipulations by — Politically desirable reaching three Metrolink stations—Santa Ana, — Publicity positive(press friendly) Anaheim (via Santa Ana River) and Buena Park (NB — Solar potential on Beach Blvd.) An Attraction of its Own • Meets $226M Measure M2, Project V stipulations — Could be unique to California, US — FTA Small Starts, New Starts — Draws tourists,visitors directly from Anaheim and Disney • Supportable by Rep. Rohrabacher (House Science Resorts to beach, Downtown Committee), Sen. Harman (CA Senate Transportation — Mitigates traffic,parking issues Downtown, along PCH Committee) Far more flexible than LRT, BRT, Monorail — Public/Private Partnerships — Takes out NO street lanes • Costs shared with private business desiring direct — No at-grade street crossings station access and/or dedicated vehicles — No catenary overhead power cabling • Potential interest— Hilton, Hyatt, Pacific City and — No interaction with street traffic Strand downtown operations;Wal-Mart, Target, other — Suitable for Edison transmission pathways if allowed retailers; car dealers? — Virtually noiseless • Major medical facilities Scalable • Bella Terra, Five Points, Downtown BID — Unlike rail, BRT, need not be complete to be functional • Ripcurl, The Village, Murdy Commons — Proliferating station portals does not decrease throughput • Boeing �;��, ,,,� Ri.gk�„b.Mv prnp.Wrrswrth .y-rra4ar aae-saa da .. ,n . , i�snia•,9!�,taw i`�4i wr�r an•l�sm+°Q�vn++rcu�arc. r- o N�•'�P b tuf war wr+a�,y+,nma�'+.s r.tw+r�a.nry � y� � � �� '` �^" 7.,,A.a•a emitad+�lr•m•FY11 Moo,rw•xilXyewy l�•••d 1'wna•Y'nrrortM+r�� r �^�' �r � r`�.e$ 4b A "� - g� s�"� � +��<a�'����Wr','�u.�>#� (L. .;„; :•''�_�,�„k: a_...,.,,�,,,..,,..�- �� w. ;s Graphlc Source:Freedman Tung&Bottomley a �. . • • • o t MUN t 1 3 5 !1 N Nj A 1. ° ON F P i w Muma.t �. °;r tz rr C� s r vow { �". ti TO ac�m3 3 YS ..117 jaF hE3 �.� s "4 r fir.,_P f"�;t3��,Y`n�sy t�Si�Er I���•����+Yf�".�r��t y W,r VIA >r ' & , � f, �, "`C�G¢i'� tN"S 13�3 k x _ �.,,�N✓ ,v' �Ra 'X`�a'`�4�3re�" � d 3�� 1��",�A��� a+ Moog r z„i4Ys3`a.pstlr-0Nr , r+a1d` a 'lh f�JSJ k� �s*. Cy4i?' 'L NzG' a4 K se, gmg ak € h`4�IY �`SJvS£ fiNaY'4Y 1tt s .r ''sgv�c £ . cs A .f x A'ry,aE s�nr`�Lil'��':aw�i. NE•$.i�1+r -0dl d� �vt°t i���r°ti N �vl�1NiJ���e�Ca� � e s a4� ':, a x AWAIT Yr All ! •' 1 I A • • ! r' • • • • • • •' 3=6 Person , AlImElectric, Driverless Vehicles ''"d� �' w�3y ^ y 6 Lit">+'•. •'�. �. � +7 • XW�� „� � ••,4 �;'����'� 47�y fif��yy P�.m ��• +1I _z „, "` `•�• y o, 9 F Offl; d � � t Y TM''^�'>',�a�* b ri,'f�,�:•';`�;,„,a�., ,'.. �'z�sti:a�i��r�":y? 'ti 4t €4>'s ;n,,,..,, �, �" ' � s�',mod+.,•r� �� Gr 1 U n id i rectional Trackway Loops 'vl VPIRI ,`40 NO '.w &gvf%, Z­ TZ M., Z ,� JIU F"A V OR"k, SjW %N o"I • on Wir 11", T W N ­'j W gv, k7n,'f nw, Un Scaleable mul Flexible MI. Relocatable Stations easily added with Example emulation of Anaheim Resort Transit no reduction in throughput Shuttle System, including Member Hotels • • • � I � I ���a '� S,pF ��' �S ���� �' tYt�'.t i ��% s��� Wi' W ��.f ��Y < t� Mr '��{xr x7 a �`, t�zr t 5� xai� rd' `'�� • � � � I � / � • ��jj � "at � �k p ��z ff �' ��}v\. � �p'��fts,$� av � ��•j��` � � • • • • . • . • �D� „L_ - a4y�Ny Wr at • r' 1 ' RT Opportunity • Analogous to a horizontal elevator • Readily computer modeled • Use non-traditional ROWs — flood channels, bike paths, electrical transmission paths, street edges, street medians • Minimal footprint • Stations attractive to shopping malls — private participation • "Last Mile" solution to commuter rail, other transit stations & hubs • School bus alternative? Stations at schools? • Zero emissions • Fast — unimpeded travel to destination • Recovers at least operational costs from farebox • Offers credits or opportunities to comply to Air Quality rules? • Station equivalency to bus stops, more prolific than LRT, HRT • Computerized for safety, security, fare handling, special scheduling • Freight handling (palletized 1/2-ton loads) • Easily co-exists with bus system for transfers, stops/stations, revenue share • Readily computer modeled � l Where in the World ? PRT operates or is testing at at least four locations • West Virginia University — 8.7 miles for 28 years at 98% reliability — 15 - 30k riders/day, capable of 4,800/hr � — NO serious injuries or fatalities • Vectus test track complete — Vehicle testing underway - - Berkshire Hathaway has 4% stake in parent • Taxi 2000 test trackway w/vehicle now : ,y — Demonstrable wireless control system : • Heathrow Airport APM by ULTra in 2008 NIN J PRT's Subtler Features & Conveniences • Within system, NO vehicle or route transfers - Point-to-Point service requires no change of vehicle • Guaranteed seat - No standing feasible in vehicle - Vehicle must accommodate wheelchairs, bicycles, therefore 100% of fleet serves need • Higher average speed compared to mass transit - Non-stop service via computerized routing control chooses fastest routing, achieves -25-40mph (urban) - Light rail -21 mph; bus -15mph • Non-scheduled services means no missed rides - Vehicles await users and not vice versa - Crowds don't form if sufficient vehicles are available as no waiting is required • No route maps or schedules required published - Station names might be sold or licensed • No missed stops due to sleeping, rider inattention • Dirty or vandalized vehicles may be rejected - Returned for immediate maintenance - Video monitoring nabs vandals, or apprehendable via ride payment or pass record • Large stations accommodate simultaneous, multi-vehicle unloading/loading • NO surface traffic interactions - No accidents dramatically reduces risk, financial exposure - Video monitoring (ala OCTA buses) limits liability from staged incidents • Station video monitoring enhances user safety, especially at night - IP-based video, alarms (from stations and vehicles) easily directed to law enforcement dispatchers • No cash handling anticipated - Fares expected collected via credit card swipe or pre-sold magnetic pass • Transit charged by vehicle, like a taxi, not per person - Encourages shared, car pool like usage - Employer participation programs feasible, encourages off-site parking � 3 n•s ttr s" c*..n t:'"C r C:; a L'.C3 ys.,;,ia tty ails kY,�. *k•. sS.'..a `���c 3i€°'1 i ,�,•�_er= v.. <-�,� - .��..c gnu.�i... .s..i.:..a�k� f � r-��.n .•:�- �a.,a,.:::�'j $ c.. '�` w a t �.i.. K �.e?. .r�i a ,>�.o w>. ��.`,. ¢ � .+: ax �\ 8y�"�-: S. � r�e�,; -.�.,�� .x.� �,.. � ��i.. <:n� �- .r....�..z. z.aa s" X>,. .�c 1 ;�•.�"�Sv.: 2� h�';s.::¢,a�a� ,� ( ;.:,>t 2, C'�..kw a...A „i � ��:,.. -,.� ... : `��? �6r a, �:_ �c ��.�za� �a, �� � ��;�, -t�°��.w r � era � r a•.. �. ei �T a�,. � ,�' _�. ,. ,i3�.•h a, ,.,.. �., '� :,.. -,... r W� Ec: `+� _�-.`.. ,j -'iS^.....� .`. t._.»�q .'g* ah s ,3"*.>:,'�' r a,.:..0 c^s�.� _.,•>rx;� .�AS',7 �z y'�'.i�, r,::€3k v,.. , ,, ,,x =z� -.�`� ��.�.,:�xu ;,. '�� ..�?¢......,:^ -, :� ..- �.-n"�•,�� tk�.'�� B� ?��L�3yr�"'�u} air`f,�kyu y�,.,3a'« ��s>;. ''kS'.:: & "'. �. �.., > ac.-M',F .rva `�h. .. �oS h., + .:.. sf I § 4t � � � .fir a;, �..•:s J,z� C a: �, 'a. 3.,. .•t��`�a3,��u 4..S`- '�,` .�n.-: �.,, : ..q tt"� 43. i Y,.y; � a';4x, aY4s��agb"i •`� :FF - r .§,�� ems- s^ ' �' .n i a`�°A�`�.�' ���`l ra� �vk§�J}s'�.'� � R��Y��,3� ��¢;4.� �y �t n �'�;wm s � "5=�.,,e•`f ter�c �Gas: �l�ifi�,�� s s a �5°s �: 'ARE t a A �a l�}.. R `�,d"s';�• `� b�''` 3� 1 '� �� TWO rs �t IN .('.��.mv ! �w�,3 ✓ z S��V � '� 6 Y adA �� At � ''z$ n q}Y FFF + I, E i" _7 a '. t, �'• afi t ...c A.�s!r',.'t if > h 3 r < dF {„ t � i -oX '°r R m.o» ub• rzX r h k f gr k a s"e VATs"..ss R t t y y c �, » h mw r t Y�r t 3 •a, -I'' g 1 ``" v` 3e ,31'" .h �itY� ..e8 s r t tt y € a ( 2 ZPW 4 a a 5 E + i x v Public/Private Partnerships ®® Local Buy-in Keyt® Funding, Acceptance • Shopping Center, Mall portals — Incented customer use, e.g. coupons, passes — Parking lot and/or in-building portals ' — Freight, mail delivery potential kArS, • Hotel portals u k — Dedicated stations for guest services — Private (computer segregated) guest vehicles • Apartment/Condo/Office building portals '° 4 — Zoning mitigation ! . — Turn parking space to revenue space w — Reduce local street congestion, emissions • Extend tourist visits — Anaheim Resort H HB — Promote via both Tourist/Visitors Bureaus • Business groups need to get on board — Will Chambers support? — BIDs? • Public school transportation — Neighborhood station portals • OCTA ACCESS service supplement — Shopping, medical facility transport — Significant security — ADA compliant • Potential for profitable private operation • Ground floor station space lease/rentals (e.g. Starbucks, ATMs, shippers) • Goods movement (palletized) — Big box freight portals — USPS FFV Oppurtynities i . AT *e ;.,, •, '1',A.t:'al?L`C+',o'.T4:' ,. x. '1 G J5� t � ,�'� ' S""`, ,� 3 y{H C •¢ �. `} °' uw wear. awdwr fia+ i „�� E � 5t {� z � ',�'; ar �., ,, a+,.oiw+.�uYrs,➢ rr,.�.�aa.a;za�.�.ea I � �t�"Y 2�' ! - - 1. ....�t+�.t+w.�surmri,^.:w�+a. w a+•a.a.e 1qq,,'S tia¢3swae'Y•.rwzyon s z p...�, 3, x #y_. � r � �'� t�V+aliy� C"t liCt�Ytets >t�trtsrt. � .4�kF vF `*V r Yi��S ,� .... 7fi 1g {I`ii11'437filir, t ., i '} "4 Y� �d•., i 3 sr' �" �5 � T ', s-. ,.�.,.�:. -^e. t 1 i,l, x°yam• el I '0 i. 454 � � r-t ":,.:—�-„s �tr+• � �„� �' 2 .�..�+''�,`sc'f ,i'��.,,i>`r'��Sp.•,r t I E i 11;,," £.V' s+y� �' ,>;.� M ? �u T ,T' a1VA 1 '' 4#{ dl [ ��• ....„. • ..t � .„�„; �- 4'" f' < '� yr. �;: "yam '1=` �sPoq,�,hd�<<:.,` F x ,� x �- t 1 W.r ..„................ ..........................",«....«......m... ..,,, ...... »_........_...............................,..................,. .... ...._._........ u.. Ada",� d �' J. 7� �'„ Example Bella Terra PRT Alignment • Hyatt & Hilton Resorts • 100s of Retailers • Large Mini-malls — most intersections • Target, Wal-Mart Regal Theatres @ Warner • Five Points Bella Terra �a Edinger (most heavily trafficked • HB Hospital, Hoag and Kaiser Facilities intersection in OC) • Comerica Bank Hi-Rise a Warner 0 Future Bella Terra housing developments PRT can operate in "Public Frontage", in street medians, behind private buildings (e.g. alleys) and in County flood control channels 0 `�e� �aR 4hCK S3P b�[1£YI+44K I�4QC QP s1a�N,htxf► §`� ;s� 'r s 2krA r iall& TA �� v ..�„�' � 4',•'�� /�,°�.;k.�n*yam, qpF` ��• a-, "i r.-..ri', �� �:K°+� 3*ry „r,�. �'�i, r_ 'haw•' ���d a .'�* r, x 't)`•'. Graphic Source: Freedman Tung & Bottomley Example northbound and soubound elevated PR°T guideways and vehicles along street right-of-way Beach Boulevard — Typical.il. Section f x t i � ¥ 3 � i ;w......_..,.............,..�.._�.. �..�....._.�.,�_�.He.e�....�..w...._...,._..�.......__w...._..w.a.._._.�_.._..__._.�_��x,a.....,....,...._..._...�..,......._m..w..w��a._......_.._.._._.�rv.,_,��..w..�..__.�...,.�..._.....w�..��w._,�..,.......w. , Graphic Source:Freedman Tung&Boiiomley I Example northbound and souhbound elevated PRT guideways and vehicles on "Y" pylon in street median Beach Bouleva'rd — Typical Section 6t or Gib WAY Rl4t 'or 4Wl`I KY ................... I 4 4 k Graphic Source:Freedman Tung&boiiomley C� Example eastbound and westbound elevated PRT guideways and vehicles on shoulders and " i 99 pylon in street median Edinger Avenue — Typical Section J I T T .. T East of Gothard St. 15",-1 -rJ-T LT� Vilest of Gotha rd St. �V High-Density Apartment/Condo Housing Anticipated in Edinger/Gothard Area t 096 0 I x > The, Reg,"ster Not to Scale Village (DJM) — 45 units/acre -M PURAVM, - Ripcurl (Red Oak) ® 87 units/acre * Murdy (FIP) — 1 ,268 units (101/acre) Murd Commons Densities subject to confirmation Sample PRT alignment, station placement in area high- density housing 4 !"M v Ran", A 10 w an MW WVI, 2 -4 71, d' L a", ;qQ', %n* I"'-,-WN RETAIL SPACE 156,955 SF Public Parking and Access HOUSING UNITS 503 UNITS PARKING SPACES 1095 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES Source: DJM Presentation of 05/07 966 RESIDENTIAL PARKING SPACES OCTA Golden West Transportation Center eiwkso' � y;ry Caal�-fiA �'-"F'� SWwhfCnay LN �a W"thayyA,ue�' Raakmarit�va �tl �we CF en {� i�erEY h�atldenAv �' �5„y 4 d Ulf i? MR,gzm ( P� Na L Serviced by bus routes 70, 29 (reaches Buena Park Metrolink, HB Downtown and Pier), 62, 66, 211 & 701 PRT potentially operates under 405, 22 Freeways • Eliminates costly bridging • Lessens visual impact, curiosity delay • More easily, less expensively reaches Buena Park Metrolink station — No impact to limited OCTA parking resources — Fencing necessary "� ,q,,,• y:.t5 ?:k:�nzr 4" "n"a:'�,`,{�=";sGB='NjN ••Dad^ .��d� �_ 2`--( UP RoW NOTSuitable for Commuter ®r Light Rail • Union Pacific not consulted re. Go Local use, would strenuously oppose — Single track • Too narrow for second bi-directional track — Not electrified — Never designed for passenger traffic • No station space allocated • Total 17.5 mile alignment infeasible for moving tourists, commuters to/from Anaheim — 2.9 miles short of beach target from Ellis, connector required f , — Does not touch Disneyland, connector required Significant use of surface streets in north Anaheim, nearby schools . : � :� • Very slow train movement necessary on freight- specific track (<10 mph) w "- • Station not likely built on Edison property at GWTC ,` • Significant NIMBY, realtor opposition to south • Needs Anaheim, Stanton, Westminster buy-in • Bella Terra station impinges on resident, Mall parking • Numerous grade crossings slows automobile traffic , ' a tR � i ip i��� � 6� i • Is more at-grade transit compatible with public concerns re. safety? t • Like Metrolink, would comingle traffic with freight • With permissions, PRT could co-exist in UP RoW directly service GWTC �. 5 4F WP ,itr. a.�. �`' �. ,"�v'*3•'ta�ysn. `K,;~'kti:',"`�*.r.. ,4....B'.7��ti=:�: .r �•1," �d .:) =,z' §'° w`:�,°, i ;,4:b�bF :s:3,., 'x"'-fix,,;E r `'�b+�• �� r w � � :.,i,.a ;"�� ,. �." '' -�'!.r,v,.zr� "Q a•. "�,��',��, r,""-a`.�7.`.-,� qq'�'. ,4 '.,;;�,> ��-<.,z,'z., a ,'tg"M° �G.�' .;-3ws,:a+i`i i- ,Y „,4,.. r,a {`' '%` °.%c + u b '�'v' •w�� i;.a z< R .e.._, ., �p,, ;Y� +$t..,,.�, �%K�s � �,,, ;_� sa,.; kr,��SF h',s � x 1T�"'�r.w; �+ ,,w. .+, %"�• S°fG:�:Y-`H",.,.�s„;4,. da;z c ,t- �l ,-.,5. "_�r r'' ,�,d _..k'' v'?:.wr„,,.� ��. „^" ,ii tie,�r'4;,' »�y �r �:•, a,{.�i � :,�,, "�s.a."-r„�2r z::R"9i: n ;R�'."� ;,si' 'c�,'",'�:",,.,:�.: .,., �� e-^3,�'� ti i S •3«, t ,L j,-. tom. j frr"v^P„`y,;t,t�,.,.,'Z.r.l=,...wt,. 4j-`'� s. <:,mmw?++t#*'--z 3N,1 §::��4,r rft 91! a•L„ ;' `',�" er�&t �,+, # ° .mot, ,r�qv b 'f;� ,:ci; e, Y+ ��,Y,,' ��?*'-,�;r^� v�te4, `,�#,,t-,, t���-'•" � t l, y""�q+a.re7" ,� '� ,�s,�`'�n�`��,���' �.�M x fk�°,r 'Y�d^a,•d �z'' a s�,�` a a .µS�< g�'rx 'ff"��. ' z1>� .� xP fi LR d"t" Ftt*•Xa,,y�p 1�� � 0^i?'4 ��x `� �' y D (y 4 Y f3 .L„'h * f.ax r 4" "� ;`�ls'�y� �'b t •L t�t f"m a �t � _" �� 4 i P �'Pr• � rt9 � r' � rrtfM ,�tMP&k'.3'a.,,•.., ., ..- ..k c:" .... .2 .. .a,: .:..%, .,.....�5„c,., .,,.,...,,s,.t r,4a':.u,=' +r'fr'„"t, .&ii 2'i'a Ifl 1u4n1: .. hr r a,1•r a.,mM i ,II •� �r, I� '• I� I' •I 1 I• � { Y I � � r ,r, I i f j ,, e $.. >' °a -..� :�, �.1' S ar+��„ #.q t•. ,: awN � � ' " : R `. �.✓/ °f.�-x 6a:;"'�''.w�.... ff�k:r.`, 2. �'> ;`+ ",'a;: q` a M_;:• 3 "\ _.� n ,� d �' a k� ih.d aS:- ...�v.. � :° ��:J i�€ec�A '�".^� �. v:w r�`�v ,...' ��- .`�tJ ���x � .. � � e .�I-<•� r�rAv ru. a`jI ,.. .o. ;'.: ,..,. R'�;.Jt. { .: "`-. "9".�' Z v '_ m;x.: . ` �, � ,fir` �® ,."s 4 E"fi � r „ �.A�,,�: � � ..�` i .»•^,:v"� � ,? '# � .� w � �' d• ,{`a"��� °'• a fit. ,::^w,'� .fi"' a>. ✓ .->'� yr.. '� r. fx>.. z2w,,. ✓ xY ;fF ! :a wf '�: ° i�ar i„ - £x ovs .,x,� :gx <,', z ':` •' .y - �' a•r'��d d 15 �k �k�vr.i -: b R�•�,;Ao t� e � x a. ��q< [... ��1'���},� ;.� �ak 'h," ah �,✓ 4's.,ti,. � '� i u.A � :� ,�._ _� ,,'�., r G,�%+ksn+7;y^F9'e,,��,ye: n • ' ; r z'x+.�r R,r ,�'' .� � � ;--�'s r� a �r� 'a a�;-:`; � .�. " c;:°�`��" �.:;�< ;ri�f„ r' 7�� fi ZOO' 4v :,q,. r+,^ J. ✓.r '+ g 3 ?e�,:^w, '?, .�i ��e4r i ,fir, :pr.,�L v ' ,yam������� Q�. fi v 9 -�:. «+.d d" sr s � - ,.+s a c f�..vyww, =-nS� s ,'�..•..�' �`.3s�S�� ; '� ..�? ,�y,«;. s,JU{`p `� �* ,r"",! ,,s� � ✓rns''✓ ,46' F �° tt qth <n v i �ttt 2, { ^za.ej .!✓iat+,�'tzav s�z Vie, a r4.``v '��^ ��w_°� w ,s� � � .,� ��':r�%a a,.. .,.: � 'rs ✓rt;: e k.��.h;; i -W-t A:' ,.. � � ax`�,;�i�'.;:, -� �•�, "�, r, rr n`"qS r t✓"�a • t ,"y .lx"'�,:.fv°,4w. a.{ k, e , .yr "; "rk,WO � ;.'A d �, �✓. 3d�}}� 'Y£rX, K6:';y :;l+aod ?n .,., tt 4k it#i ©ir {rinks yzls't#r• g ,..ag 6,,>.- d<, rs +#'d� ��i� �t° ..a. k i:: 1 a�'. `�'�' _��� °•., .�. _`s� 4E ;^,w,�++'r + "hr 39 Po S �,Y rd er ',vm a n 7v >3> r 1 s ;: iV. a'qr or �,�y. �.,€� s1 " k 5i k ?^2 q �{t !t � it . S �o, t 'ta.='4.' 't, ,.:�, sW N.. ,°C .'wa7 y ��. 1 ,,+' r,... �s ,,•,,..::�; .z r...1 a x `?. t� j,P�'i' .�� dydr � n��,+ � kvi:- ',at..a a y.:; �`��yy•�ty;:>- �v'�`,y``� '.f� d-' °v kv ..er � �`� � 3, U,�' pyr �+a.. S„'s��zz�kS51,3r '":n � iw� ikbf7jj a. � a'-,. �r.:� ,L of �$. : ..- ^�.S'�'rtb e.. '✓� �L 4•-::�' 1 s $�6kn.. .,x.<-sr {u;;ah s ?Y=°. p{ »•.r �,�,.. a�...,� * �n� ;'� ,,:a k ,?' Y�R t ���r ...`� � ,>x`,:.iv�} .- tia��'p 'i��; ;:, .. �.?;' � p .,i�F i ,r •� .,g ;a ca �"��..a'�a . ., �I�,• +�� �,M, � �. .A;,. ,u �., ,:�, b ,. ,. _:,+� t as�rs�l,rs"'iR"r ' v:+� � a xr� °:.r .i'-. °.i�,k a•S ..qi ;�� r..,a rn,: ➢V k a ,I;,: t q_ .n ....d V l - a<r';+r. �c. �.r ,o?..a.A ,.. •.z .a [* :.ld' ..ati f. .,...-. ..:. ....:S.r :. � °^ ..,��. sa ;tet.3' - s ,` ,+„ x -,•« ..;1>.. �..{, '-.r:..r ��<>5 - � <.. ws#�`+. e y 'C .t a � L 'v ..a�., °k*,. �F�-�`�„yy: ,a..� e"`', .��{ ;,�., av r,„,,. v.:�' is � <+�">�y Jt � �:. r.�-:'k. 4� ,�"u,.:.� ��� ,<{3, $- M1K"��a +id• 7,f't,.,� .f a.., � , � <.:: +C�<,` '. =r.. a ,.a '�.i ,, 'v. . �';:: � a ul 't ,.. o ti., �...: ,:y..,n .. r,.x... +�.,,,:': ,: ,.�: i ..+6•m. �";",� r>, .,�.;&,� a?�4.;,<r a*...;,4;. r, �.,,, ,., � �•�, � ,< k..sn� �G: ' .,*,: �r� f � t� � a-:�3'� �bit, +�5.. .. {� c, t`A� „�r� ,�Z •;.., y !f:> ..„.d � J,rf•c;� `�` 3r � ... ,. ,, 1 4 1-'�5'`.r1 s �.I..X,2 T3�i .::'Y l.�{+{a. azk `.. '4R1'3 ,.v s .i... ,., :, :•y. ;. K<-.r �pum`""ry''.; :;Y .. � �.k' WR. .�-a 4 .5:. r'r:., t -: i f S,}��. ✓a^'k'^L ut; r: r k��5�: yy��,, �✓"< f+.�^ k .:F 3 F,;> f Vie,, 14;.. .;.,°' ,. Bar'�:..5 � .-r-,4 �' 4.,. +.,.:sv ... .. ,�. fee... �. My.,Y�. >, m�" 7 ,.. @".� -.,•,�' {,(,.e. :7^ �� >„. x 3"n t ,csy ��f e �3-;n,�',«•�a'< ..h'^ >31 <. sx..$t_:;fi•",e P?e: e,.., a.�fi+.... a vS -:--k,£`#'�,k. �' .� "� -.� r,...td v:)^,�kg ' x +, '.� f & , ,.,.,,, a �„ � ,rit• +,13 t < a .; .? r: ,� ix,.a. .t.�,.;, :+.p_ ,.a<, .� r ;.�. ,°i. A tt ,4 ` . f '�rs�} rr`,N w V. )-' i a.. ,� t �Is`L•. s�r �3 by' a ; �� .�i;•. ,,.' 4� '�i`'L .<•l k ..,,.. a.�� \F' e .... �.. ,NSF,# �..� � "%<;'< "�. �!.'' r.. �: .. ._ �:,,.a, x r.,�.. � ;r r .1"s.x.. aaf�h�,<..:rrud 3Hhn ,:". �..s.tom• 4,.:.r .,�x,,.r., b^tP ., c � y �,«;.d� �,Ik �s `,�u•rb�fi.fr.�S'L l F �,,� � t � K di a �,a f �'.�3 sb'sf r i�'.��.; ,k.„' x n a �. ...zb t :y.. n �'# •�;•:, ,b'� ,E ta.<re � t,. ,.� :�� ,,.�*. -;.. ,< ,.5 4a^ ..-�;,..,,, :: {. �ti+:A{t k r,..yt� 'K �� t�, b'..5 •k=,t, wS,.�Y fFb FS... 3:. �. 3 b R, 6::: � "___.��lY 1 i'f�4, h ,ae ,r 1.w, ? '; �� {eP � ,,o, ,y," 3 e^-' `` _v a�Y:,--. aR... �n�ir` ,, `.. ✓ r., .,...,,::I 6 `§ y' ,>,.. Y ...I +t 19 7§ G&'w 3 `` `="' S q 1 ✓x {} n a i % "S11 d;l ail z *- r ✓ j x,�,'," k l gory k`zr r w�£7 ir �»_,� � a " airs#�a 'E R�� �:� +�� S v � u,�`F r� a� c.�� r �1�� �A��"�,,✓�':`�.; '; , 4 b d �ci w � t ��� 4- �t�� ! r 3� y + r"✓ ti � ��:i a` 2t �<+'r�.,r a r �: +✓4 ..kk ���� �� ski;. i ,ak l'^ti�n>��k i i s-k r-_Ha Af �' i4# i`:ti rvnl'f P,�t kr°�.✓"`^' y -� � '.r �� +..:3 �� 9��':' ;�.�nliflb- k o a r <z e_.a Rf -.f,a riaf a1T 1 / "."b? Fv * ,r • Aft''#ar3'. IYna�ei'+204 33�B'S:39°u_ - 1_h".'+ d4'D5'W'-nl !, -.S1Ls - .:; Ya„�s :: S1 .,iji .• � 1 �� ,� 4 S. �� k :d! �3���� • .,:.,. P I 1 I.116;xoo -:� ....,^: .^e.l 1 i S9 J29:` d�It35 7CI1 � ✓ :�..A I �� � i ��,� I � Il, /� .' I I 't� • I e. 1 .s, .� L ) . I. �I • l � �. ,I I� V '•.- • �, t P ffg'Y iM 0"��� R+L.kd+$r�kpg@ d mkt 51 x j R3y 4 WeR a an 'g �p ,gyp (' 5 kgyp+ PS Q;. b j a d ° # R, �c' q'• z„. r' l� a a r , "s 'v Y 3 q d rb & g Y R 4x Y, Y� g��ma r xk ? S q g � �N$j�a� � r � � rar� �x 9 S'S�s� � ➢ � � � r F .€ - IS - r'.. 4 at„ RE k s Thank you for your attention and interest ! " "Irre sh thhrldingwill be rewarded " --- Renewed Measure M Transit Overview, page 21 http://www.octa.net/mplan2/transit.pdf PRT S145trategies Fountain 'Valley, CA u ww.prtstrategles.com 714.5 1.707f "r 1.r..r•�a Y ',Y=.�' '�i-'h Y-t ...�,, .5,*.� ��� <.�,.tivx:i.� x 7 n Q � r;.:�Y ',l i� �x� �'a. ,.1.' ��`G� '�"`"T k�kx.' „.,r :.,;'„ .,�.,�>" r/,r,/,.,.%� ..�'/�:.ram.r�/,.✓i_..��.'�...ia�`,�r^."."� 5,.r/ r ,. y,T �`k/"� /r�M z<.��/ ,�, �L` �>�x T� T�a....,e<o��"�� .�i ' '...., ..,,i ✓cif f 4,,.. ..,;; K r._t.+�.r<..;_.;s.N�,w/ i,y.; ,;3::� ,���'�;.5,.1_, ��� \�' :\^�\ a\.. \e ;;�! sa Mt - _ r,�,4. .,'�rP;E.,F*�x,?$;r;?,�fY,',;s�;'r3�?':"�%"�;�`i��' :'��;�'�'�,:?� ,t•,.��>����}t '"a '�r .Y, .x't� �' J�fsYS�i�+' la1%�� �n'���kv5 �t�r,• rv� ........... ................... DTSP Update PlanningCommission StudySession ffParking July 28, 2009 ��dl" ..�� , Fa . ;,.' .,,. ��.:,.: .;":.,t' :...," .; ,,,.�, .; ,..'.'` -,i r'N;N ;y,�s'gr.yh.,._ �\ �. \�:'�.'.�: :''\�.. , '•k�'^^S@ ':1 w.. \ �ai\\v �c�. �, '..�'. ': .,, ,,.;i:,.. ,,.,•, ',''. �-:. '(.-,• ,:,">; .'.,, -d, , ,.£&, � ixc?;rn� � •."�.C\'..c.\��'\<��< .\.. ��`\�\\c�`� ti�3�zx�a��4:'���. S\\�.s� ."��: rki n in n tlunt' ington Beach ® Downtown Specific Plan Update Proved t „ ® es opportune y to u pdate parking � � 0 Includes additional development, density ,Y . 'y?fry• Downtown Parking Master Plan ( DPMP) ® Reached the development cap ® Monitoring and tracking system cumbersome 3 r , ® Supply and Demand data needs updating ® City, Business owners and Residents ® Concerned about the parking supply now and in the future ® Interested in approaches to better parking management ® Want to know where additional parking can be provided ® Concerned about changes to parking requirements for new development KHA Parking Analysis Efforts e Parking Master Plan Update 0 2008 Inventory & Demand ® Identify Issues and Develop Strategies ® Recommendations for Now and Future ® Integration into Specific Plan 0 Workshops to obtain input, feedback Coordination on future development 01 Develop new Approach to Parking X-MV New ratios and requirements Recommendations and implementation plan Existing ® PMP • Current Parking Ratios • Retail - 3: 1,000 • Office - 2:11000 • Cinema - 0.3 :11000 • Restaurant — 10:11000 • Commercial projects over wow 4MM 30,000 sf satisfy minimum of E 1 F. I F OU& 50% on-site J L_J __JL_J UL- • Larger developments should 01 1 D2 utilize attendants during theme peak demand times, park tandem • DPMP Boundary I Study Boundary City shouldn't build new spaces ry iffln'IN R,AM -Nvm! MAR."', ......................... Current Par i ng Invent® r v Location Spaces On-Street 756 Off-Street - General Public 11729 Private Business Lots 232 Tota I T 2,717 • Approximately 717,640 GSF downtown, includes Strand. • Includes parking in privately-owned structures. • Does not include private, residential parking. • 2 Pier Lots — 618 spaces (Not part of DPIVIP) ..:r.•.: "... t.; -x 'v:^Fc;r .,..>. ,. ,'N .."-,.: .;.,•..°� z' .'a- > ........ .."�.�.:.�.t.` .i::.� tt'. +t'.uU'•"•x+z::y+:k s�':'""to....i��... ".3"L..,,�"'i""'""sy" vft ,..x, s' . ',fi• „^ >o.k,u .�.'"„� '� "st ;., 'x ids":i.t" u"...:.:"...i.;4 i�tr mv,:'. .fix im,,�,. ,.r'.;. E;M.,. .� �pS`k°�^<" R. w, �9 � �f:7�.���i'�'i .7✓�.� � .�� � �� m'r �� �7" '�".i� 3. tii.' ��vvSS��P.r r 1 • i i n+v OR la (e d usm c s * denti r i IntrUmisio% L • Expand the residential permit parking to areas Downtown Parking Zones that provide direct beach access. • Add meters and enforcement to secure close-by parking for residents. Z"QN*° 1, • Install meters on more streets in zones 2 and 3. p Price for peak activity. • Expand the residential parking program to � �„.,�• � rya.,, �� F' �i,��'�„% incorporate these new parking p p ng t x>M�`tm�tt � � .` Ada cu ;�.. s z , < • Continue to offer two free parking permits with z, x � F two visitor permits per residence. lE3 •.� t R Z� � � � y«'q • Increase the annual rate for additional passes. F 3 �,St'��x+f'f�"'.'�x�:''��v, ,;.na,�;kTXx?hY,•, S,ro,�;u`-1".r,;,��-•`„� i�.<,.�;�a.,.6�&��.evf a�'Yr���<. 6owefown NVRlMpbnBwM1 � ,,, . Pshllq RIM�lu6>♦1.�i00P LEGEND; 1.1.Sow R®oieo epe IWI 10 WAIL R J PARKING ZONES-FOR TIERED PRICING AND METERS ®® KMI Han ek A.NOOgI.t,Ine. "A" Modify Parking Fees * Parking rates last reviewed by City over 5 years ago 9 Current rates do not reflect the variable demand ® Price influences parking behavior, modifying can: • Improve parking demand management • Help the City better manage parking assets • Help maintain and build more parking tree ccistom—ef s/Employeeisidnly Free NO Restri ctions rV Mrking Metef.,,, None, /$I. U'SO / $340 (2-hr Time 11,110 Beat i n,covs uni i n efc Nonej $LSO/ Nomax 11'�, Beat h,Summer: None Flat too S 12-00 1$12.00 riaza Almerl a., 30 uAn SZ,00 V,8jDO I Main Promenadc IS inin, $2.00 MOO 4 01 Herside Raviflon: Nome 1 S3, J 5 1'2 10 0 ��rrw 4,x w a r,>x xE e.}�q r.. 6»,,,�t'r ,• `o.. .'i, i.. .d .,ah,y a...•a.. ° a.W•F y., ...N.•... s3fr: '.k ",„ A<:.',':vf+r 1%.:'rA,..rs� d ,� ,.r . .�:., ,F%:., ;>`c�,„�;%�'',.✓�;,yr, .9.r'a d„ p.�.." Current Parking Fey Issues • Beach pass cost is low, allows users to park in too many places. • Validation program is complicated, may be misused. • Residential program areas should be expanded. • Employee parking should be in designated areas and located in the structures only. • Capacity could be increased if structures were used for valet parking during peak periods, including tandem-parking. ia�ae�X"�,•,-<,x+.:-xr.-:: ��.:;<ma -.<",,.•...,,,.•^ .,,.,,�',.: ,. ;...�;<..�,.,,. �:tv r E .V 1....,,.rr`�,,x.R�x,�. !viz,, n" i„ +'�✓, � �' '� .., ..,..':., .,f,.,..,,. ., .. .,,_...�,,l,F.._,..,.�.,,,,..,,.n..... l.,.r.,.... „f,�_.•_..;'. '���f��l'i6^'i-'fib n "\� �\Add .. .....::.:......:U,,,,,;,.,s.,.: :..: r:-, -:r.,.:,;,..;..;;.;.;r, // _ ,.,.L,=s zi"d•f" ,�k "_„�_'� \�� rx� x�.\�x a i ore BicticlePar i ® More racks ® Requested by Community ,3< ® Reduces need for vehicle spaces s • Increases modalF choices K Part of DTSP objectives ® Fast implementation ® Specific locations identified d•, 5 +v Insta l l Parking I nformation Guidance Signs • Can direct packers faster • Reduces "drive-around" traffic • Can include DTSP design features • Static and/or electronic • Site specific and area-wide r. Provide Employee Parking Spaces Provide incentives to encourage employees to park in specific locations — such as on the top levels of structures. ® Need to educate businesses on the value of parking for customers ® Requiring employees to park in specific 3EW, location would require changing the current ordinance ONIVY" ® Would improve demand, use of spaces and turnover throughout the downtown ® Could be located in remote lots during highest peak demand times /. '� � e?�^';9>'?•k, e (aj;.. Y a'M<x u�" �,Y.Sa,v R �` �,y4 v J i>' „ a Typical Summer Wq-:---: ekt= i A "t"a N............... j a � z� .. ....... IN a MEMO', WK j� k� ��� %i�t �' Z 8+ is �• a a t, �. ^� „..s,„s Foy.cz✓+ "1,,;T, ,xS 'Ma; l J '9 o M *' 1t �z+ac ONE: Add Downtown Parking '4q-�v 12, RINI ohms, 0 Vol Aq� Sm's iQ A # 0, , I %m City Owned ll =ONE Wmp O v N Parcels 1 vv � W. ell" NO W "M SET', INNF"'Et, 47 P112"fA PWIA-111-1'1��r-, -low .............. Loprvd U'r UM-d ......... UTY-OVYNED,PARC-ELS 4WNTWfT0N SCACH'00 OWN SPOCIVIC 11,AN ��0:1 ic6�1 .............. INN, Add itiona l Public Parking : City Lot Exaranp Ie * 262 below grade * 316 above grade • 578 TOTAL spaces P-2 7' 6" 7-6- .... .. ... �;.;.:.,.::E.,:r.:zwu• n�:x'y;xn+-,:ati'E":f.�^el`r, -r<,—v:,l: ,,^3 .. �.:•r, m {..k?•"•,c«„, a :: .inP.� ..?L Y °�,„ .�.. .{Vi elei,�.{1!�xE'. 2:; .n „ 4�a� t�x�.�1V"'a.i'.., v">i.4T.V�'n�r.��.Tr s, rw .. V �� ���� ���r� �rr°�f'����..�,r.:�'�ym, i.. ��e;,,'��S� ,'�� � �, �jv��\�� ��� r���`�•`f �;g ,� Additi0mal Public Parkinri 5t' reit Exa1v%1-%1p1 ,1o:? ® 379 below grade 435 above grade 814 TOTAL spaces ,....... ......... _._. All �. ." _ __1-ank"" .�. MEN- 1 x i r'arxl tam51 F3 Shacmx k. hfl.,-� 40ti;iZz.q., al MINMER,�!XIMri.rawr Hx, M R R Additional Public Parkin g : Main/3rd Example - 507 below grade - 601 above grade 21.},"I a .I - 1,108 TOTAL spaces ga 0 to: <fM X� ..,x�,' >,,y,.p.,a,w,� k,. §� .Y '.,E,'nq•'.• ARAI 's"t�'•"+,,.*.s*, :.?<. .,i.:.5:`i'`"l�.�ssSl'. !',t x".Le "�k:"':`n":�., .,y.arac,M C� "��.:.: „. .,i>v;re :r,;u • `�w.^..,v ".,�K .aerY ^?�'�h2;.i.Ka.''" ."��,`��4,.� �•,ae;�"^:*�>. x " \�,i" " .. ,.,. •,,,,,,, Tf;, „w.':;ay�,•,,.,, ,:r,- <.,P"."�>'� „S,, >�x: .. :'' "cap ua�,f .r„s.;ur3,,, •/',*r .. 'nl,a., :'a„ w;Zaw.a ,.,II,.y,,.. •vale xYc „v:z,,� .a• INN " Additional Public Parking : Arts Center Lot Example • 84 below grade • 132 above grade • 216 TOTAL spaces , I x !�!, r-i i Example of Automated Structure :.;....,.,.a�;x'•;,r.,<.::..:. ,a.<a,..,,ay.:,*»,.... ,m ,,,; ,,.�_ ,:,-•tea ,a .r, � ,>t�n i�r'tfi,<'p;*n r;:'z,,,>�� � ,. ;ti• 'tC%'��. �„ �,'�„ i�fr s, w,,.,., ,K3V. ��". y ,a.. .;,....,.<«,..aa,.��:,_.,. r ,i (�'� ,rya;,,; �„�.w;{xl.°� �ti, �•c �. a..,. ...� 1 c s 3.,A �' .. :•������ 3~4�mar x� Valet Parking Op • Provide more valet parking options — could use less desirable lots, temporary lots • Encourage private structures to provide valet during g peak periods • Renegotiate the Duke's valet y parking contract - last negotiated over ten years ago. Base the new x negotiation upon current parking � r rates and the Strand valet agreement. • Include CPI and/or minimum rate not lower than structure rates RINFRO 7- 7r77 Su m M' er Sp ecia l Events - 0 w ..:•. .. ...........:...:...:.(nd. �.. .�34.n r„°?W.�< .,u,ete1 n t. � r 5,.. '*,�,,.s�,5..� J k .K"` .. .a.✓',,,� ., ,F<qi„ xkx x.4xxx:x�xbx:w�x::x��x:'.A'=k�a�x."Ane"::rx.:k.:`•u.�"'1i' is ,r .fir n` ,..r7" R �`,r:�� .. Pa, ..,>.,...„, 5„`T-a.„,"4�„ In 'r,,.df._....,f.,l,....,,li, }"v: �u..� �'`.�.��1.•''..`� �:� 1>F, T. L 4 t C. l 1 l S Development • Allow in-lieu fee payment concurrent with. available additional public parking • Provide additional public lots and/or conventional or automated structures • Replace existing parking lost due to new development and streetscape improvements • Foster public/private partnerships to provide additional public parking (i.e. Plaza Almeria) • Allow for and provide incentives for private parking structures (conventional/automated) ®TSP Parkin a 1 ® s • Downtown parking ratios to apply to DTSP District 1 • Residential * 2 spaces/unit — same as current ratio * # of guest spaces reduced from 0.5 spaces/unit to 0.25 spaces/unit * Must be provided on-site * Tandem parking allowed • Non-Residential • Retail — 1:333 sf • Resta u ra nt — 8:1,000 sf • Office - 1:500 sf • Tandem allowed for 40% of spaces • May be provided on-site, off-site, or payment of in-lieu fee (ideally for smaller developments only) • Visitor Accommodations - Hotel, Inn, B&B • 1.1 spaces/room • Must be provided on-site Pa rki ng Strategies - Nea rby Beach Cities ply y Cr 0 ,el - ,Z; Aq, 4Z,0 A9 4� City Newport Beach x x x x Laguna Beach x x x x x x X. Manhattan Beach x x x Hermosa Beach x x x x Santa Monica x x x San Clemente x x Santa Barbara x x X X x San Diego x x x x x x 3 ?,,�a;fr NI , .,,,. x ,<r� �e�F'� �,.,.,. .'�' ,;:'' ./l i �a,\'xe. A\,'l.�`.,'.. d...tc •� ��„ '�.�\s \"� �y���. r ' TMEW Parking R - Nearbybeach Cities Modified Specific Plan or Zoning District Standard City P rking Requirements Requirements City Retail Office Rest'rnt Nightclub Retail Office Rest'rnt Nightclub Notes Restaurant rate applies to "small scale" restaurant w/no live entertainment, No Newport Beach - add'I parking required for up to 200 sf Central Balboa 4/ksf 4/ksf I 13.3/ksf 20/ksf 2,86/ksf 4/ksf 2.86/ksf 20/ksf outdoorseating. Code provisions to reduce parking requirements through joint and combined Laguna Beach - parking, shared parking,and for expansions Downtown 4/ksf 4/ksf 10/ksf 10/ksf 4/ksf 4/ksf 10/ksf 10/ksf and historical structures. Parking reductions for downtown Manhattan development range from 0 new parking for Beach - development <10 KSF to code required for Downtown 5/ksf 3.33/ksf 20/ksf 28.6/ksf 0 to xx 0 to xx 0 to xx 0 to xx increment> 10 KSF. Code contains provisions to provide add'I Hermosa Beach - relief to existing uses converting to a more Downtown 4/ksf 4/ksf 10/KSF 12.5/KSF 3/ksf 3/ksf 10/KSF 12.5/KSF parking-intensive use. Development in Bayside District provides no Santa Monica - additional parking- pays parking assessment Bayside District 3.33/ksf 3.33/ksf 13.3/ksf 20/ksf fee only fee only fee only fee only districtfee. San Clemente Reductions apply to Downtown Mixed-Use Downtown 3.33/ksf 3.33/ksf 1 1/4 seats 1/4 seats 2,5/ksf 2,86/ksf 1/5 seats 1/4 seats development Further reductions of 10 to 100%are Santa Barbara - allowed in designated "Parking Zones of CBD 4/ksf 4/ksf 4-10/ksf n/a 2/ksf I 2/ksf 2/ksf n/a Benefit" Linda wrote: The following message was received from City Attorney Jennifer McGrath. My distribution of its content does not indicate my support for the positions stated therein. Linda ToSent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:47 AM Subject: Time to let your opinions be heard On Tuesday, September 15,2009, the Charter Review Commission of the City of HB will be hearing p ,i!ic input regarding election issues. The meeting is at City Hall from 6 pm-9 pm. The Charter is the Constitotion for the City and has not been reviewed in several years. On Tuesday night,the Charter Review Commission is soliciting public input on if the City should have a directly elected Mayor,change the elected City Attorney, City Treasurer,and City Clerk to appointed positions, and other related election issues. Please try to attend and let them hear your thoughts. Invite your friends, neighbors, and co-workers as well! This is my (Jennifer McGrath's) Statement to the Orange County Register on September 10, 2009. .I strongly believe the elected offices of City Attorney,City Clerk and City Treasurer should remain elected. As independently elected officials, each position is immune from inappropriate pressure and can better protect the community and the General Fund by establishing checks and balances with the policymakers. Both the Clerk and Treasurer have been elected positions for nearly 100 years. The City Attorney has been an elected position for over 40 years. Currently,all three elected officials are accountable to the electorate. Dilution of the right of the people to vote does not Iead to better government. Under the current system, the City Clerk ensures transparency and the availability of the public records that belong to the citizens.The City Treasurer is able to receive and invest momes on behalf of the City to ensure the best possible return on investment and protection from inappropriate use of funds.And lastly, the City Attorney provides objective legal advice to avoid illegal or improper decisions. None of the previous Charter Review Commissions have recommended that the City Attorney become appointed.No initiative from the public has ever raised this issue either.Ironically,the only people that have placed this issue on previous ballots are current and/or former council-members. Lastly,each time the voters were given an opportunity to make the City Attorney position appointed,the voters have rejected the opportunity. As for the City Attorney specifically, over 55%of the voters in the State of California are represented by an elected City Attorney. As of 4