Remote Surveillance Trailer in Huntington Beach, CA

Notices of Starbucks cafe closures are sweeping across Southern California with at least 69 locations noted in a crowd-shared Google sheet.

Not all closures have been verified by the Southern California News Group.

The Seattle-based coffee chain is closing hundreds of stores nationwide in a $1 billion restructuring plan under its Chief Executive Officer Brian Niccol, the former CEO of Chipotle and an Orange County resident.

Starbucks notices posted at stores indicated the cafes would close by Sunday, Sept. 28.

Orange: 44 Plaza Square

Brea: 1090 E. Imperial Hwy E-3

Fullerton: 1000 E Bastanchury Road

Huntington Beach: 21000 Beach Blvd.

Huntington Beach: 6502 Bolsa Ave.

Laguna Woods: 24100 El Toro Road

Newport Beach: 2700 W Coast Highway

Newport Beach: 2700 W. Coast Highway

Newport Beach: 3601 Jamboree Road

Newport Beach: 4678 Campus Drive

Barstow: 2567 Commerce Pkwy.

Corona: 2690 Tuscany Street

Hemet: 889 W Florida Ave.

Mammoth Lakes: 2935 Main St.

Ontario: 1337 N Mountain Ave.

Rancho Cucamonga: 12335 Base Line Road

Redlands: 27512 W Lugonia Ave.

Yucaipa: 31364 Yucaipa Blvd.

Beverly Hills: 257 S La Cienega Blvd.

Culver City: 10601 Washington Blvd.

Culver City: 4114 Sepulveda Blvd.

Chatsworth: 20516 Devonshire Street

Diamond Bar: 20160 Golden Springs Drive

El Segundo: 2005 Park Place

Glendale: 500 N. Brand Blvd.

Hermosa Beach: 1100 Pacific Coast Highway

Hermosa Beach: 1107 E Pacific Coast Highway

Hollywood: 5545 W Sunset Blvd.

Lancaster: 2053 W Avenue J

Long Beach: 2221 Palo Verde Ave.

Long Beach: 6324 East PCH

Northridge: 9420 Reseda Blvd.

Pasadena: 93 W Colorado Blvd.

South Pasadena: 454 Fair Oaks Ave.

Santa Monica: 216 26th St.

Santa Monica: 2200 Colorado Ave.

Santa Monica: 2901 Ocean Park Blvd.

Sherman Oaks: 15301 Ventura Blvd.

El Monte: 9327 Garvey Ave South

Studio City: 12824 Ventura Blvd.

Torrance: 20301 Hawthorne Blvd.

West Hollywood: 7100 Santa Monica Blvd.

Westchester: 8844 S Sepulveda Blvd.

Woodland Hills: 5422 Topanga Canyon Blvd.

Woodland Hills: 6203 Topanga Canyon Blvd.

Los Angeles

10612 National Blvd.

1090 Wilshire Blvd.

12100 Santa Monica Blvd.

138 S. Central Ave.

1700 N. Vermont Ave.

2134 W. Sunset Blvd.

300 S. Santa Fe Ave.

3006 S Sepulveda Blvd.

3150 Wilshire Blvd.

3344 S La Cienega Blvd.

3450 Wilshire Blvd.

3785 Wilshire Blvd.

444 South Flower Street

5020 Wilshire Blvd.

5353 Wilshire Blvd.

600 West 9th Street.

7055 W Sunset Blvd.

7122 Beverly Blvd.

729 N Vignes St.

760-762 S Broadway

8000 W Sunset Blvd.

Starbucks informed employees on Sept. 25 that it would be closing hundreds of stores in North America and laying off about 900 employees, but which stores will be affected?

Brian Niccol, the CEO of the Seattle-based coffee chain, told employees that 1% of locations in the United States and Canada would be closing shop, USA Today previously reported. Niccol previously worked as the CEO of Chipotle and went viral for his response to customer complaints of portion sizes. He has been the Starbucks' CEO since 2024.

The move is part of the company's "Back to Starbucks" plan, which aims to put more focus on customer experience.

The company had 18,734 stores as of June 29 and will have 18,300 locations by the end of the fiscal year, meaning about 430 locations will shutter.

The 900 non-retail employees will have been told whether they will be laid off the morning of Sept. 26, USA Today reported.

"We will offer generous severance and support packages, including benefits extensions," Niccol told employees in a memo. He also urged employees whose jobs did not require them to be on-site to work from home.

The company also said it would inform employees of the shuttered stores who will be offered transfers to other locations, and who will be let go.

How many stores will Starbucks close in California?

ScrapeHero, a data company, says there are over 3,100 stores in California as of the end of July. The stores account for about 19% of the locations in the U.S.

Starbucks announced in August that they were closing its pick-up only locations, including 20 in the Golden State.

The coffee chain had not revealed which stores would close their doors, but ABC News reported that at least 155 stores are closing, including the pick-up locations. Los Angeles and the surrounding metro area had the most store closures in the state.

Starbucks stores ABC News reported will close in California:

The San Francisco Chronicle also reported that the company is shuttering several outlets in the Bay Area, including several locations in San Francisco.

Ernesto Centeno Araujo covers breaking news for the Ventura County Star. He can be reached at , 805-437-0224 or on Instagram and X.

HB ordinance called for “review of library materials containing sexual content”

SANTA ANA — Today, in a win for the freedom to read, a state superior court issued a tentative ruling against the City of Huntington Beach in Alianza Translatinx v. City of Huntington Beach, prohibiting the city from implementing and enforcing its censorship scheme in the Huntington Beach Library system.

“The freedom to read is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy, and today democracy won,” said Erin Spivey, a plaintiff in the case.

The court order stops Huntington Beach from enacting its 2023 resolution calling for “review of library materials containing sexual content” and restricting minors’ access to these materials, which continued until today in Huntington Beach libraries.

”Today, the court confirmed Huntington Beach’s Charter City status is not a license to disregard state law and violate constitutional rights,” said Jonathan Markovitz, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “We appreciate that the court protected minors’ access to a diverse range of library materials they need to learn about the world around them and to participate in a democratic society.”

Filed in February by three Huntington Beach residents, including two teenagers, along with the non-profit Alianza Translatinx, the lawsuit sought to compel Huntington Beach to comply with the requirements of the 2024 California Freedom to Read Act and the California Constitution.

To implement its 2023 resolution, the city passed an ordinance establishing a 21-member community review board with unappealable power to impose a censorial process over the library collection. The resolution also required restrictions on minors’ access to a wide range of topics including educational materials on gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, and reproductive health – anything with any kind of “sexual content.”

“Today’s ruling is a victory for our communities, for our youth, and for the fundamental freedom to read,” said Khloe Rios-Wyatt, founding member and CEO of Alianza Translatinx. “The court made it clear that Huntington Beach cannot censor books simply because of whose stories they tell. Representation saves lives, and access to knowledge is essential to dignity and equality for all.”

Though the ordinance was invalidated by a June ballot measure—voted on by the residents of Huntington Beach—the resolution had remained in effect until this court order. The court today also denied the city’s demurrer, which attempted to dismiss the case.

"Freedom to read is essential to learning and growth,” said David Loy, legal director at the First Amendment Coalition. “The government should not be deciding what library books youth can read."

Plaintiffs were represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, First Amendment Coalition, Community Legal Aid SoCal, and Jenner & Block LLP.

Read the tentative order: https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/lmartinezrulings.pdf

Huntington Beach’s beloved — and controversial — annual airshow faces a pivotal test on Friday when the California Coastal Commission is set to vote on whether to grant the airshow a permit for its planned October event.

The airshow failed to get a permit in recent years from the commission, which has jurisdiction over coastal development and activities. Its staff are proposing to grant a one-time permit to the airshow in exchange for a strict list of conditions and a fine of $274,758.

The show operator would still have to come back to the Coastal Commission with a complete Coastal Development Permit application, and get the commission's approval, in order to put on future shows.

Why the airshow has been controversial

The city is currently paying the airshow a half million dollars annually, plus other perks, as part of a controversial legal settlement that came after the operator accused the city of unnecessarily canceling the show in 2021 following a major oil spill.

Critics said it was an unnecessary giveaway of public funds — at the time, hazmat crews had been dispatched to local beaches to clean up the oil and local officials were bracing for a major environmental emergency. Plus, the city refused to release the full settlement terms to the public until a local school board official sued and a judge forced the city to release them.

Then, the city sued the State Auditor to prevent it from auditing the settlement, a matter still pending in court.

What are the conditions for granting the permit?

There are 21 of them. They include:

What’s next?

The Coastal Commission meets Friday in Calabasas to discuss the permit. You can read their staff report here.

You can submit requests to speak and watch the livestream on their .

If the commission decides not to grant the permit, it’s unclear whether this year’s airshow, scheduled for Oct. 3-5, will go on.

An Orange County judge on Friday ruled against Huntington Beach in its effort to move certain children’s books to a separate section of the library.

O.C. Superior Court Judge Lindsey Martinez ruled in favor of plaintiffs Alianza Translatinx and three Huntington Beach residents.

In February, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California was among the groups that filed suit against the city, arguing that its policies were in violation with the California Freedom to Read Act.

Martinez agreed, also rejecting Huntington Beach’s argument that it didn’t have to comply with the act as a charter city.

Erin Spivey, a former Huntington Beach librarian who was among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said that Friday’s decision was a victory for democracy.

“I’ve always been of the belief that the library is the most democratic institution in the country,” Spivey said. “Whoever walks in the door is equal to every other person who walks in the door. They are all welcome, and they should all be represented in our collection. So, every part of me fully believes in what we are doing here today.”

Martinez ruled that attorneys for the plaintiffs have 30 days to submit a proposed writ of mandate, stating how they expect Huntington Beach to comply with the ruling. Examples that Spivey gave included removing the restricted books area from the fourth floor of the Central Library, as well as removing the restricted books list from the website.

She added that the library may want to reestablish the “young adult” section as well.

“Today is bringing me hope, in that the law is on our side,” Spivey said. “I know that unfortunately, the city of Huntington Beach will most likely require the court ordering them how to comply with the law. That has been their modus operandi when dealing with the courts and legal challenges. I don’t expect them to comply without that writ of mandate from the court, but I know that it is eventually going to happen.”

In June 2023, the Huntington Beach City Council introduced the idea of making certain books that were sexual in nature inaccessible to children. The council passed a resolution proposed by then-mayor pro tem Gracey Van Der Mark. Titled Resolution No. 2023-41, it introduced a parent-guardian review board that was established with Ordinance No. 4318. It also directed library staff to relocate children’s books deemed inappropriate or obscene to another section of the library.

Measure A, passed by Huntington Beach voters this past June, repealed the book review board.

Attorney John Howard, representing the city at Friday’s hearing, argued that Measure A rendered the ACLU lawsuit moot. On Aug. 19, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-57, stating that Resolution No. 2023-41 was no longer in effect.

The city also argued that the Freedom to Read Act itself, which was passed last year, was unconstitutional.

But Martinez agreed with the plaintiffs that the city, which continued to segregate children’s books in an adult-only section as of this week, was still violating the Freedom to Read Act. Spivey said she visited the Central Library on Tuesday to verify that the age-restricted section on the fourth floor was still there.

Jonathan Markovitz, a free expression and access to government staff attorney for the ACLU, said he believed Friday’s decision was clearly the right one.

“I think that the key thing about it is that it reaffirms what we already knew, which is that the city of Huntington Beach’s charter city status doesn’t give it license to violate state law and to violate constitutional rights,” Markovitz said. “In understanding that, the court prevented the city censorship regime from going ahead.”

Huntington Beach can appeal Friday’s decision.