Last week I officially recorded my nomination papers to pursue a second term on the Huntington Beach City Council.  It is with great enthusiasm that I begin this process.  I am looking forward to sharing my vision with our community as a whole once again.

I wanted to the share the news with the individuals who have followed and participated on this blog first.  I appreciate the insight and commentary that you have brought to the many of the issues we have contemplated here.

In the next few weeks, look for exciting enhancements to this site.  I will continue to have “Surf City Sidenotes” as a communication channel for my perspective on current city events.  I will also begin to develop pages that give specific information on my reelection campaign and events leading up to November 4.

If you are interested in helping in that effort, please drop me a line at don@donhansen4hb.com  I welcome your thoughts and suggestions.

- DH

I am glad to report that the traffic community forum conducted September 14th was a success.  It was organized pretty quickly and we had approximately 25 attendees.  At the forum I had 3 officers from the Huntington Beach Police Department and our traffic engineer.  I believe the session was a good exchange of ideas and information for both sides.  Here are some issues we will be pursuing:

Evaluating speed control measures on major arterials around schools
Implementation of real time "Your Speed" radar signs
Enhancement of school zone signage
Evaluation/Development of new crossings around schools where the boundaries have changed.

I believe it would serve us well to work with the school districts on this issue as well.  I am hopeful that we can conduct a few more forums with them jointly.   I sit on the city/school district subcommittee and I have added this suggestion to our agenda this Friday. 

The City Council also expressed interest in following through on these issues at our meeting Monday.  I will continue to keep you informed via the blog about our next session and actions.

- DH

There is a lot of buzz in the community right now regarding the potential sale of surplus school sites currently maintained by the Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD).  The HBCSD board recently voted to circulate a Request for Proposals on 4 Surplus school sites - Burke, Gisler, Kettler and LeBard. 

CLICK HERE to see the minutes of the meeting.

I have been asked by many in the community on how the city plans to respond and what measures we will take to ensure there is not a net loss of open space.  LeBard and Kettler for example support two very successful youth sport programs.  The loss of these fields would not be a positive outcome for our city and would seriously hinder our ability to keep these vibrant and worthy programs functioning as they are today.

I believe as a community we have the obligation to do preserve the sports programs that so many of our youth participate in each year.  Besides the obvious health benefits of this activity, the children learn teamwork, discipline, goal setting and rewards of hard work.  These programs also bring parents together to work for the common good of the participants.  That has value and I will be working for a solution that keeps these programs alive.

After my election 3 years ago, one of the first major issues I tackled was ensuring we preserved the programs at Wardlow and Lamb (which were owned by the Fountain Valley School District).  I learned many things during that process that will benefit us as we work with the HBCSD.

On a positive side note, I believe we have the financial ability to respond should the need arise.  The City Council will take up our FY 2007/2008 budget this coming Tuesday.  Assuming no major changes to what has been proposed by our administration, we will enter this budget year with a undesignated surplus of over $6.9 Million.  I expressed in our budget study session that I believe we would be wise to hold on to those funds until we know how the HBCSD plans to proceed.   Assuming my colleagues agree, we will be in a position to unconditionally exercise our rights to purchase a percentage of the properties should that be the necessitated action.

There are still many issues to cover.  I want to work pro-actively with the HBCSD board and administration as I believe I have a good relationship with quite a few of them.  My daughter will enter the 2nd grade next week at Hawes, so I have a vested interest in the success of the district. 

Let's make sure at this point we are all working together to figure out the best options for our community.  I am confident that the HBCSD board is doing their best to be good stewards of the district.  However, this issue has macro effects that will resonate throughout the city.  As such, we will need to look for win-win solutions that benefit all of our stakeholders.   We have an impressive group of pro-active citizens in our community.  Through our collective wisdom and energy, I am sure we will find the way to what is right.

- DH

I recently joined the committee that oversees landscaping and tree issues within the city.  My first meeting was brought home what a difficult situation we have with parkway trees and property rights.  I recently answered an email that inquired why a neighbor had received a $2,800 bill from the city when a tree at OSH is $50 bucks.  I thought it would be good to share that here for a wider audience.

Here is the text:

Like all issues there is a bit of a back story to this situation.  I don't believe we have found the correct answer to this policy issue, but I recently joined the committee that handles parkway trees.  If this is the case I believe it to be - it was actually my first meeting.  The resident unilaterally removed a removed parkway tree without city authorization. 

It is my understanding that they recently did a significant amount of landscaping in their yard and the tree removal occurred during that update.  The city will permit removal of the tree if the tree is diseased/dying or if it is causing property damage (roots in sewer lines, uprooted pavement, etc).  The resident was unable at the meeting to produce any documentation to that validate these exceptions (the slightest evidence would be enough for me to waive the fees).

The bulk of the charges assessed are not for the replacement tree (as mentioned they are on sale at OSH) nor for the city work, but rather the appraised value of the mature tree.  Believe it or not, there is essentially a "blue book" for trees that establishes stated value.  The resident incurred a charge for around $1,800 (I need to double check that number) for the value of the healthy tree.

So why the fee?  The policy is meant to deter individuals from breaking out the Stihl and chainsawing the parkway trees when they are so inclined.  The tough part is that parkway trees are on the residents property.  Tough property rights call here.  I believe you should be able to do what you want with your property, but we can have some neighborhood standards (planning/zoning codes) to which we abide by.  In this city the trees are protected.

To recap - here are some key points:

1) The resident can get out of the penalty fee by producing any documentation that the tree causeddamage - that's a free pass in my book.

2) Parkway trees are (currently) in the city's jurisdiction - Don't alter or remove without authorization.  If it is causing damage - get the permit first and save the headache. 

3) Is this the right policy? - Believe me, if we rescind this today  a good number of your neighbors will be creating firewood tomorrow.  Reasons from "I don't like the way it looks" through "The birds make a mess of my car" will be given and the clear cutting will begin.  Most prefer developed parkway trees in neighborhoods - but most is not all.

Let me know what you think about this issue.

-DH