From: Paula Schaefer
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; [email protected]; Barnes, Lisa Lane
Subject: Agenda Item # 20 (26-182) License Agreement re HB Int"l Surfing Museum - Document attached is incomplete Date: Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:32:00 PM
Council Members,
This Agreement should not be voted on at the 3/3 meeting because the document presented in the Agenda is incomplete. The Agreement references both an Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
However neither is attached to the Agreement and therefore the Agreement cannot be adequately analyzed as to its merits.
I urge you to hold off on considering this item at the 3/3 meeting until a complete document is presented to the public.
Paula A. Schaefer
--
Paula A. Schaefer
3/3/26
20 (26-182)
From: Christopher Rini
To: [email protected]
Subject: Supplemental communication re: Agenda Item 26-282 Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:08:45 AM
City Council, Agenda Item 26-282 at the March 3 City Council Meeting concerns a license agreement between the City and Huntington Beach International Surfing Museum (HBISM).
The museum’s 990 form shows that they made a profit of $12,103 in 2024, and 89% of that income was derived from donations and fundraising.
(https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/330275732) The proposed agreement would have HBISM paying $500/month as a license fee. That comes out to $6000/year or half of HBISM’s revenue. Half of income going to rent makes for a financially precarious nonprofit. Likewise, if HBISM lost the concessions of free utilities (Section 4M) and free parking (Section 4K), the finances may not add up. One would also be concerned that foot traffic (and donations) would decrease with HBISM moving from a vibrant entertainment district to a semi-residential neighborhood.
Also, Main Street Library may not be suitable for a museum. It does not have HVAC, and the electrical system is at its limit (Section 5V). How can we do right by the PT Collection if we can’t store it properly? Chris Rini
45-year resident
Virus-free.www.avast.com
From: Jan Madnick
To: [email protected]
Subject: agenda item 26-182
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 11:34:22 AM
To the city council,
I am writing in opposition to agenda item 26-182.
I've been attending all of the meetings that the architect has held where we've heard and seen pictures of the vision for each of our libraries. At each, he's made it clear that these visions will only come to fruition with lots of money.
The re-imagining of the Main Street library included the reality that the library has portions that are unused, partly because the library is not ADC compliant. Just this factor alone will be costly.
Surely you also know that the electrical system at the library is already stressed at the current level--and that doesn't include this move. So, exactly how do you justify moving the ISM into the library AND having the city pay their utilities?
Where are exhibits A and B?
Who do you think will organize the various materials--certainly NOT the job description of the librarians.
What is your plan for parking around the library/art center? This is already a problem.
There needs to be a study of this proposal and its impact on the city and library. I would strongly suggest you remove this item from the agenda until that has happened.
Thank you,
Jan Madnick
44 year resident
From: Paula Schaefer
To: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF); [email protected]; [email protected]; Barnes, Lisa Lane
Subject: Vote NO on Agenda # 20 HB Int"l Surfing Museum Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 1:31:37 PM
Attachments: HBISM Form 990 2024.pdf
Council Members:
There are many reasons why you should vote NO on this agenda item.
1. The attached Agreement does not contain Exhibits A and B, which are integral to understanding the terms proposed. As a result, the City's taxpayers have not been able to review a complete agreement.
Exhibit A is the "designated space" within the Main Street Library. How are taxpayers to determine whether this is a suitable use of that space without Exhibit A?
Exhibit B was to include a "nonexhaustive list of programs" to be presented by the Museum. How are taxpayers able to determine if these programs are a potential benefit to the City?
2. Why would the City consider subsidizing this nonprofit organization? It has been in existence for many years, yet struggles to keep the museum open regular hours.
It has been closed January and February and intends to be closed March. As stated on the Museum's website this closure is needed to prepare for a future exhibit; thus showing it does not have sufficient staffing or volunteers to maintain accessibility to the public.
It was months behind in rental payment to the City at its existing location.
For your review, I've attached the Museum's Form 990 for 2024 that shows its financial status.
3. What is the public benefit to moving the Museum into the Main Street Library? It is not clear what benefit the City or its taxpayers would receive from this move?
4. The Agreement requires:
City staff to work with the Museum on potential staffing, gathering statistics, and programs
Assist in organizing, preserving and storing the Museum's property Potentially provide the Show Mobile at no cost
Provide a separate space for a work area for the Museum (is this in addition to the Designated Space that was to be included as Exhibit A?) Parking at no cost
These are significant issues with this potential agreement. At a minimum, additional information should be provided to the City's taxpayers for our analysis.
Until this information is provided, I urge the City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item #20.
Paula A. Schaefer
From: Carol Daus
To: [email protected]
Cc: CITY COUNCIL (INCL. CMO STAFF)
Subject: No on Agenda # 20-Surfing Museum
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:04:42 PM
Dear City Council members,
I urge you to vote against the license agreement for the HB International Surfing Museum to take a major portion of space of the popular Main Street Library. A much greater number of HB residents utilize the library compared to the small, non-interactive Surfing Museum. The monthly figures of attendance have shown this to be true. (The surfing museums in Oceanside and San Clemente/Laguna Beach are much stronger and will continue to attract most surfing fans and tourists in the region, not the HB museum with its meager collection).
You are not being transparent with residents regarding how this project will be funded and managed. Why are you more concerned about tourists than HB residents, especially when there’s no guarantee that tourists will even show up to this location? They certainly haven’t been attending the museum up to now.
Thanks,
Carol Daus
HB resident
From: Tamara Colby
To: [email protected]
Subject: 26-182 HB ISM move to the Main st library
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:59:07 PM
I am against the execution of a License Agreement by and between the City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach International Surfing Museum for use of City facilities and operation of the Surf Museum. I am against the location of the HB-ISM at the Main St branch library located within Triangle Park for the following reasons:
1)
The operations of the surf museum are incompatible with the library operations due to noise, security, events, museum displays that involve multimedia, and the continual circulation of museum visitors through the library space. This library already has the lowest square feet per patron ratio of all the branches. It is crowded already! And the new project displaces the current children's story-time area.
2)
My biggest concern here is the safety of our children and staff, given that adults from around the world will be able to move freely through the library.
Spending time at the museum would allow adult predators ample opportunity to stalk a target which could be a staffer, patron or minor. 3)
The museum does not qualify for a Conditional Use permit because it does not have enough onsite parking. It requires 1 space for every 300 sf. Also it does not qualify for a shared parking agreement. The Downtown specific plan states that shared parking agreements may be developed if 2 or more land uses or businesses have
distinctly different hours of operation
or hours that do not substantially coincide
or overlay with each other (e.g. theater vs. office). Your own report at the last session said the operational hours will be the same for both organizations. Even if the above criteria were met, such uses may develop shared parking agreements to satisfy the parking requirements of this Specific Plan, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the <<<<Planning Commission >>>>and may require a <<<<coastal development permit >>>>in accordance with the following:
a) only 50% of the require parking may qualify for the shared arrangement; b) A minimum of 50% of the required parking must be met on-site notwithstanding the parking reduction provisions of this Specific Plan; c) Required parking must be calculated based on the land use that demands the largest amount of parking.
However, no data or analysis of the HB Art Center parking demands are given.
The HB Art Center has a big need for parking: it has 2 FT staff and 3-4 PT staff and the classes can have 12-20 participants. There is only one handicap space at the art center. So how can any shared parking agreement be approved?
4)
A branch library is a local serving use, and the patrons can easily walk, bike or drive, so the onsite requirements were assumed to be met by the spaces along the street. How do we accommodate the parents that drive their kids to the library after work when parking is a high demand? In addition, this area already has a severe parking shortage due to the new residential development and the success of the commercial businesses. The site and neighborhood does not have enough parking to support an international museum staff and visitors. The proposal still fails to analyze parking impacts. Parking structures are located closer to the museum's existing location.
5)
The effort to store the personal collection of one man, that is un-curated and not in archival condition, into a space that is not meant for a museum is not in the public interest. The surf magazine collection is owned by who? Has it been reviewed by the chief librarian and the Library and Community Services Committee?
6)
The financial impact to the city is not analyzed. Why is the city taking on a big project when it has a deficit? The cost to do the upgrades is not realistic. This looks like a city gift of public funds, vital library space and staff. And any funding for expansion is still not feasible given the deficit. Let’s be realistic and accountable.
7)
The surf boards in the main reading room will displace the historic photo collection and distract patrons. And the museum occupies 2033 square feet and has much in storage. How will it possibly fit inside this already cramped space? How do you avoid the ISM taking over more and more space?
8)
This project does not analyze the impact on historic resources. The main library is an historic resource and any modification of the building must follow state guidelines. For example, the surfboards are large and heavy, it will be necessary to bolt them down with safety straps into the wall for earthquake safety. This has not been presented in this proposal and evaluated by a structural engineer.
9)
Library patrons will be distracted by all the activities, visitors, noise and visual and printed artifacts. Not to mention people taking selfies. Are we sending mixed messages to our kids to go to college but also surfing is so important we put it in your library? Many kids skip school to go surf. Do parents want to introduce their kids to surfing at a very young age?
10)
HBISM likes to have rock concerts. While this is fine at the beach, Triangle park has residential uses on two sides. Most neighbors already have issues with the noise downtown.
Tamara Colby MCP