H.B. council denies permits for 4-story building, backing member’s appeal of Planning Commission decision

A developer who proposed building a four-story building with ground-floor retail space on a vacant lot on Third Street made his case for the project at a public hearing during Tuesday night’s Huntington Beach City Council meeting.

But he was outnumbered by downtown tenants who voiced concerns about the project’s potential effects, and the council ultimately voted to deny permits for the proposal.

The city Planning Commission had voted 6-0, with Commissioner Connie Mandic abstaining, to approve coastal development and conditional use permits for the 19,660-square-foot building at a public hearing Nov. 12, during which nearby businesses cited worries about additional traffic congestion, queuing in an adjacent alley, truck loading and unloading and the project’s impact on public parking in the downtown area.

On Nov. 20, Councilman Erik Peterson appealed the commission’s decision based on concerns about parking and the potential effects on the surrounding area.

The building, planned for 321 Third St., would include 1,660 square feet of retail space on the ground floor, with the three other floors serving as a local business’s headquarters. There also would be a roof deck and 41 parking spaces in a two-level garage.

Applicant Jeff Bergsma and other project representatives said car lifts and an underground level accessed by a car elevator and managed by a valet service would supply a majority of parking for the building.

However, neither neighboring tenants nor most council members were on board with the idea, casting doubt on city clauses like a staff-approved plan for staggering employee start times to mitigate vehicle congestion.

Bob Bolen, a downtown business and property owner, said during Tuesday’s hearing that the structures surrounding the site are one-, two- and three-story buildings, including parking structures, and that the proposed design “is not compatible and will look out of place with the rest of the block.”

“Just because you’re allowed to go four stories does not mean you have to build four stories,” Bolen said. “The parking solution that is being proposed with the project is a convoluted, over-conditioned, untested gamble, which, if it does not work, will be a disaster.”

After hearing concerns from several other neighboring business owners, the council voted 6-1, with Councilman Mike Posey dissenting, to deny the permits.

Councilwoman Kim Carr worried that the car lifts and compact design of the proposed parking configuration wouldn’t fit larger cars.

She also objected to the idea of “the government ... telling people you need to tell your employees to come in certain hours and stagger it.”

“I have a real issue with that,” she said.

Councilman Patrick Brenden and Mayor Lyn Semeta echoed objections regarding government overreach.

“I can’t imagine how you enforce that. Do you have a code enforcement person standing out there on the street watching how many people come and go in a building?” Brenden said.

“We’ve got to look down the road 20 years, 30 years and we’ve got to envision what could happen. It may not be a single tenant, it may not be the use that it is today,” Brenden said.

Posey firmly supported the project, pointing out that car elevators have been around for 80 years and, although they are uncommon in this region, are widely used.

“[The Planning Commission] could find no legal findings to not approve it,” Posey said. “They found that it does comport with a downtown specific plan ... there are no variances. ... All of these fears, in my mind, are unsubstantiated with data — there’s no data to support it.”

Peterson countered that “it might meet the letter of the law, but planning is discretionary; that’s why there’s a conditional use permit. So with that I just can’t support it.”

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.