Att #4 Final EIR — City Council/Public Financing Authority, September 2, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

5. The DEIR concludes that the Project will result in significant noise impacts .

The DEIR concludes that the Project will result in a significant impact if it generates excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. It also concludes that the Project would result in a significant impact if it would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. 4 In addition, the DEIR states “[t]he noise levels from aircraft flyovers during the 2023 Airshow exceeded the maximum noise level criteria outlined in Table 3.4-3. Lmax exceedances ranged from

1.3 dB to 50.1 dB over the various aircraft performances. Noise levels from aircraft flyovers for the duration of the Airshow would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels and thus result in a significant impact.” However, the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions for approval of a Noise Deviation Permit to allow the Airshow promoter to be exempt from its ordinance.

Of the six locations that were monitored for noise during the 2023 Airshow, none of the noise measurement areas are within the city boundaries of Newport Beach or Costa Mesa, despite those cities being located within the TFR. Therefore, the DEIR does not take into consideration noise standards for those jurisdictions. We note that despite expanded operation of the Airshow in 2024, no actual study data was provided for the 2024 Airshow.

6. Wildlife surveys must be done prior to Proj ect approval; City has not analyzed the whole of Project.

Under CEQA, the City must analyze the Project’s impacts, which include “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Please refer to CEQA Guideline Section 15378; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4
th 1209, 1220. This standard is consistent w ith the principle that “environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment—which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.” Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal3d 376, 396.

The DEIR states “[t]The geographic area for evaluating the Project’s cumulative impacts for biological resources is the Show Center Area and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER).

The Project analysis concludes that there would be a potential for impacts to special-status species 4 Page 3.4-21(Section 3.4.6.1) of DEIR.
9-10
9-11
9-12
I
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 6 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

and wildlife movement corridors. Although no suitable habitat for special-status species occurs within the Show Center Area, and no impacts to special-status species within the Show Center Area would occur, there is a low potential for special-status species within the BCER to be impacted.”
5 However, the DEIR does not provide any studies to support this claim.

As noted above, the Project includes the TFR airspace ring of five nautical miles for maneuvers by the Airshow aircraft. These flyovers are beyond the Airshow acrobatic box and will have significant impacts on wildlife preserves and natural open space under the TFR airspace, including the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park.

The DEIR does not provide any information about the potential impacts to protected and endangered species in the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park. Fairview Park, like most of Costa Mesa, sits on a blufftop overlooking the lowlands of Huntington Beach. Because it is nearly 100 feet above sea level, the noise and vibration from jets travelling in the TFR over Fairview Park is more intense than the area in Huntington Beach below it. Bird displacement in Fairview Park has been observed during the past Airshows. The DEIR does not analyze the Project’s foreseeable indirect impacts. The BSA needs to be expanded to include the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park due to the environmentally sensitive habitat and species that exist in those parks, and the fact that aircraft participating in the Airshow fly over those parks. Surveys of the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park must be done as part of the DEIR and include all pertinent seasons, including migration season. By cutting short the environmental analysis prior to approval of the Project, the City violates CEQA and makes new, accurate analysis of the Project necessary after approval. It is impermissible to delay studies and offer some vague suggestion of mitigation measures, such as suggestions to alter flight patterns 6, that might occur at some date
after the approval the Project.

In addition, a comment letter from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife must be solicited.

7. The DEIR fails to appropri ately analyze and disclose all significant environmental impacts.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a lead agency fully evaluates, discloses, and, whenever feasible, mitigates a project’s significant environmental effects.7 An EIR serves as an “informational document” that informs the public and decisionmakers of the significant 5 Page 3.7-8 (Section 3.7.1.2) of DEIR.
6 Ibid.
7 Public Resources Code, § 21000-21002.1.
9-12
(cont.)
9-13
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 7 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

environmental effects of a project and ways in which those effects can be minimized.8 Accordingly, an EIR must clearly set forth all significant effects of a project on the environment.9 In this case, the DEIR fails to properly analyze and/or disclose the significant air quality, noise, and transportation impacts of the Project. As noted above, it also does not include several scoping letters that were sent to the City in response to the NOP.

A. Air Quality. As stated above, the DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. The DEIR states “potential impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of air quality plans, exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and resulting in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people were found to have a less than significant impact and are not addressed further in this Draft EIR.” However, the DEIR does not include impacts on sensitive receptors found in the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park because no air quality study was performed in those locations, despite their proximity to the Project and despite being located within the TFR. Further, the flight patterns and study areas depicted in the Biological Resources Technical Report
10 are inaccurate in that they do not reflect the entire and actual flight paths used during practice flyovers and Airshow performances in prior years. In addition, flight patterns for the 2024 Airshow have not been provided.

B. Noise. As stated above, the DEIR concludes that the Project will result in a significant impact if it generates excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. It also concludes that the Project would result in a significant impact if it would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

It is important to note that no noise study has ever been completed outside of the boundaries of the City. The Project Site is not near public schools, but the flights associated with the Airshow are over sensitive noise receptors and land uses, such as public/private schools and places of worship, and the noise and vibration from military aircraft interrupts the quiet that should be enjoyed by those under the flight paths. The DEIR is deficient in that it does not contain noise and vibration studies for areas outside of the City boundaries that are impacted by the noise and vibration originating from the Airshow. Noise associated with amplified sound, crowd noise and aircraft used in the Airshow could disrupt and displace wildlife, including protected and endangered species, in the Frank and Joan 8 CEQA Guidelines, § 15121, subdivision (a).
9 Public Resources Code, § 21100, subdivision (b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subdivision (a). 10 Figures 4a-4p of Appendix D of DEIR.
9-13
(cont.)
9-14
9-15
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 8 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

Randall Preserve, Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park, all of which are located within the TFR.

C. Transportation. The DEIR states “. . . during the 2023 Airshow, there was a clear increase in inbound traffic volumes in the morning and outbound traffic volumes in the evening relative to a comparable Non-Airshow day. The magnitude of change was most noticeable in a concentrated 2-hour period, with a peak direction (AM inbound, PM outbound) of up to 15% on Friday and approximately 30% to 40% on Saturday/Sunday.” 11 However, this data only relates to streets in the City and fails to include traffic data from Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, which also experience traffic impacts.

In addition, the DEIR must disclose the proposed routes for construction traffic associated with the Project, and any alternative routes, so that the impacts of construction traffic and the effects on other environmental resources can be evaluated by agencies and members of the public.

D. DEIR is deficient because it is missing information. Please refer to the attached scoping letters from this organization, Fairview Park Alliance and Hamilton Biological that were sent to you before the deadline stated in the NOP (collectively, the “Letters”). The Letters list information that was requested to be included in the DEIR. We request (1) that the City revise the DEIR to include all the Letters in Appendix A to the DEIR, (2) that the topics requested in the Letters to be covered by the DEIR be analyzed and included in a revised document, and (3) the comment period be extended for interested parties to provide comments on the new information in the revised DEIR.

Any additional information and analyses included as a result of revising the DEIR should include all feasible mitigation measures considered in association with impacts. 11 Page 3.5-8 (Section 3.5.1.1) of DEIR.
9-15
(cont.)
9-16
9-17
9-18
t
I
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 9 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884

8. Conclusion.

CEQA promotes public health and thoughtful governance by requiring evaluation, public disclosure, and mitigation of a project’s significant adverse environmental impacts before that project’s approval. We urge the City to include the information requested above in the DEIR, that the report be recirculated for comment, and additional meetings with the public be held so as to conform with CEQA. Alternatively, we request that the City reject further consideration of the Project for the site of the Airshow and work with the promoter to determine a less impactful location.

Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Richard J. Huffman Treasurer
Cynthia McDonald Assistant Treasurer
cc: State of California, State Clearing House
California Assembly Member Cottie Petrie-Norris
County of Orange Supervisor Katrina Foley
City of Costa Mesa—Mayor, City Council and City Manager City of Newport Beach—City Council and City Manager
Costa Mesa First’s mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable, and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish. Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa’s leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first. 9-19
-~~~;re_
~~~~)

Attachment A

Letter dated March 4, 2024, to City from Costa Mesa First

9-20
Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
March 4, 2024
VIA EMAIL – [email protected]
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project
Dear Mr. Hyland:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project”) to be located in Huntington Beach, California.

The approximate boundaries of the Show Center Area (as defined by the outline on Figure 2 of the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”)) from northwest to southeast would be Seventh Street and Pacific Coast Highway to Beach Boulevard and from Pacific Coast Highway to the Pacific Ocean, including a portion of the Huntington Beach Pier landward of the State Lands Commission mean high tide line. The NOP indicates that the Airshow Performance Area (as defined by the outline on Figure 3 of the NOP), the primary area for civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, would be located next to the Show Center Area and would extend over the Pacific Ocean with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 ft. from the shoreline and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 ft. A majority of the civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics would occur within approximately 500 ft. and 1,500 ft. from the shoreline. The Airshow Performance Area, or the aerobatic box, is identified by 16 buoys placed in the ocean that identify this area. However, many of the aircraft maneuvers, particularly for the military, would spill out into the temporary flight restriction (“TFR”) airspace controlled by the Airshow. The TFR, as issued by the Federal Aviation Administration for the Project, would be a five nautical mile ring centered on the center of the Airshow’s aerobatic box. The 9-20
(cont.)

COSTA MESA
~---Fl~ T .

Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
restricted airspace within the ring extends from the surface to 15,000 ft. above mean sea level.

The Show Center Area and Airshow Performance Area collectively comprise the project site (“Project Site”). However, the NOP indicates that, for the purposes of the technical analysis within the draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), a broader study area may be defined that extends beyond the Project Site to reflect the potential impacts associated with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics traveling to/from the Airshow Performance Area.

The Project Site is approximately 8,700 ft. from the Frank and Joanne Randall Preserve (which is across the Santa River from the Huntington Beach Wetlands), 10,000 ft. from Talbert Regional Park, and 11,500 ft. from Fairview Park, all of which are nature parks in or adjacent to Newport Beach or Costa Mesa that contain environmentally sensitive species and habitat areas. In addition, all of these areas are within the TFR. We are submitting the following comments for consideration by the City of Huntington Beach (the “City”) as it prepares the EIR:

1. The Project Site. As noted above, the Show Center Area consists of the beach and the Huntington Beach Pier landward of the State Lands Commission mean high tide line, along with parking lots, commercial/restaurant uses, bicycle and walking trails along Pacific Coast Highway. This is an area with public access and recreational use that cannot be denied to the public during the Project event (“Airshow), as it is subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.

2. Airshow Expansion. The Airshow historically has been held annually in the Fall in the City for three (3) consecutive days (Friday through Sunday), with additional days of aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. The approximate times the TFR is in effect during the week of the Airshow are typically Tuesday from 12:45 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The hours of historic Airshow flights typically occurred between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; however, other Airshow-related activities have extended to as late as 10:00 p.m. Since 2021, nighttime flyovers have occurred in connection with the music festival that is part of the Airshow.

Future Airshow events are anticipated to be held annually for three (3) days to up to five (5) days, generally Friday through Sunday or up to Wednesday through Sunday, with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. The NOP and Initial Study have lists of new Airshow activities that are anticipated to be added in 2024 that would likely extend the operation time to as late as 11:00 p.m. The NOP indicates the expanded Airshow would continue for an additional ten (10) years beginning in 2024.
9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
The expansion of the Project may have a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change to the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project, including but not limited to land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance, and social or economic change is related to a physical change. The EIR must address these changes and provide mitigation measures to be taken to alleviate the impact of the changes to the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project.

3. Public Access and Parking. The Airshow is a regional destination designed to require that spectators and concert attendees travel mostly by motor vehicle, therefore impacting surrounding cities with traffic. The primary vehicular travel corridors to access the Show Center Area are from I-405 to either Beach Boulevard, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, or Goldenwest Street; SR-55 to Victoria Street in Costa Mesa to Pacific Coast Highway; or Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway. While changes to vehicular ingress and egress in the Airshow area are temporary, there are also impacts to traffic in adjacent cities, such as Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Because this is a repeated event, traffic impact fees must be paid to surrounding cities cumulatively impacted by the Project event.

Further, the increased traffic will affect emergency response times in the event of a widespread disaster, or riot similar to the surf contest riots that required assistance from police departments from nearby cities to quell.

In 2023 and prior years, the operator of the Airshow constructed a sizeable private bleacher seating in the Show Center Area, resulting in denial to members of the public (i) to access the beach, (ii) the ability to cross the shoreline and access state tidelands seaward of the bleacher seating, and (iii) to access to the entirety of the Huntington Beach pier. In addition, access to the beach parking lots was denied to those not attending the event. Access to these areas was for the exclusive private use of ticket purchasers throughout the duration of the event.
1 4. Noise and Vibration Levels. While the City’s Noise Ordinance allows noise from temporary events to be exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance, it is important to note that no noise study has ever been completed outside of the boundaries of the City.

The Project site is not near public schools, but the flights associated with the Airshow are oversensitive noise receptors and land uses, such as public/private schools and places of worship, and the noise and vibration from military aircraft interrupts the quiet that should be enjoyed by those under the flight paths. The EIR must contain noise and vibration studies extended outside of the City boundaries to those areas impacted by the noise and 1 Source: Letter dated February 21, 2024, from California Coastal Commission to the City and the Air Show operator.
9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 4 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
vibration originating from the Airshow. As discussed in more detail in Item 6 below, the noise associated with amplified sound, crowd noise and aircraft used in the Airshow could disrupt and displace wildlife.

5. Air Quality. While the Airshow is temporary, the queuing of traffic to enter the event backs up onto Pacific Coast Highway. In addition, there is a queue of traffic to exit S-55 to Victoria Street in Costa Mesa. Those traffic problems have the potential to cause gridlock that could result in a temporary CO2 hotspot that may have an impact when combined with traffic on nonevent days. In addition, the unpermitted privatization of public land by the Airshow has resulted in extra vehicular miles being travelled by the public to access the areas adjacent to the Show Center Area and increased pollution associated therewith.

There will be the impact of the additional flights arriving and departing from the airports used to stage the flights. The fuel combusted by aircraft engines emits carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and soot. Nitrogen oxides emitted by aircraft contribute to climate change and are a pollutant in the lower atmosphere, but also destroy the stratospheric ozone layer at high altitudes.

As stated in the Initial Study, the Project may expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations due to its proximity to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and special-status wildlife species such as the federally endangered California least tern, western snowy plover, California gnatcatcher, Ridgway’s rail and Belding’s savannah sparrow. The Frank and Joanne Randall Preserve, Fairview Park and Talbert Regional Park also have sensitive receptors that may be exposed to pollutant receptors and must be included in any air quality study performed in connection with the EIR.

6. Impacts on Biological Resources. As noted above, the proposed Project is near the Frank and Joanne Randall Preserve, Talbert Regional Park and Fairview Park, all of which contain environmentally sensitive species and habitat as documented by multiple studies, some of which can be found at
https://www.costamesaca.gov/community/fairview-park/biological-reports. The Airshow occurs during migration season for many birds. The Frank and Joanne Randall Preserve, Talbert Regional Park, Fairview Park, the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, and the Magnolia Marsh have all been used by migratory birds and local wildlife as a wildlife corridor. Surveys of the surrounding areas for wildlife and ecologically sensitive habitat must be conducted and reports provided. The linkages or migration corridors between habitat areas must be preserved. 9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
During the 2023 airshow, repeated low flyovers by the Airshow jet aircraft caused disruptions in normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including feeding and sheltering at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. The repeated low flyovers harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over. This action is considered a “take” and is in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 251.1. Additionally, under sections 550, 630 (18), and 632 (121), (122) of title 14, no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation. The sound pollution and overhead flights pose a threat to birds and other wildlife. The areas noted above are critical stopovers along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16.U.S.C §§ 703-712). These also include threatened and endangered species which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C §§ 1531-1544), and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (Fish & G. Code, Ch. 1.5, §§ 2050-2115.5).
2 The Airshow may temporarily impact movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the Project site because of noise, vibration and waste from combusted fuel associated with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, increased visitation by humans, amplified concert noise, nighttime light or glare, and the associated traffic and trash accumulation along the beaches. This increased presence could disrupt local movement and displace wildlife within the Project site and the other environmentally sensitive areas noted above. In addition, “bird strikes” by aircraft need to be evaluated both in terms of safety to birds and to aircraft and spectators. In addition, any aircraft accident in areas with environmentally sensitive species and habitat could cause ecological and human health and safety damage. As such, the impacts in these regards would be potentially significant and must be further evaluated in the EIR. The EIR should evaluate how the Project accomplishes or fails to implement the environmental goals, objectives, and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan.

7. The City Must Comprehensively Evaluate the Project’s Environmental Impacts and Consider All Feasible Measures to Mitigate Potentially Significant Impacts. The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a project’s lead agency fully evaluates, discloses, and mitigates (where feasible) significant environmental effects. An environmental impact report serves as the informational document that informs the public and decisionmakers of the significant environmental effects of a project and the ways in which those effects may be minimized. Projects of this type typically involve significant environmental impacts, so the EIR must contain sufficient detail for the residents of Huntington Beach 2 Source: Letter dated February 20, 2024, from California State Lands Commission to the City and the Airshow operator.
9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
and adjacent cities to understand and meaningfully consider the issues raised by the Project. This includes the following:
x Criteria for locating the Project at the Project Site x List other sites considered
x Describe any anticipated substantial change to natural topography or other ground surface relief features through landform alteration
x Provide depictions of any blockage of public views from designated open space land areas, roads, or to any significant visual landmarks or scenic vistas that would result from the Project
x Provide details of plans to provide access to the public to beach parking, the pier, state waters and tidelands during the Airshow
x Describe any economic and social equity benefit programs, including programs to hire local residents for the Project
x Provide an analysis of the increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as a result of the Project compared to the prior and existing Airshows that have occurred each year since 2016, excepting 2020; this analysis should include the impacts on the City and surrounding cities
x Identify and provide details of any proposed program to mitigate traffic impacts, including the unnecessary idling and queuing of vehicles, both in the City and surrounding cities
x Identify programs for mitigating greenhouse gases, including the use of zero- emissions technology, van pools, carpool incentives, bike share, no idling policy, etc.
x Describe any programs for mitigation of aircraft fuel and diesel particulate matter generated by the Project
x Provide details of any program requiring all stand-by emergency generators be powered by a non-diesel fuel
x Identify and provide details of any proposed alternative flight plans and alternative dates for the Airshow
x Provide an analysis of the impacts on air quality, water pollution, noise, and vibration levels created by additional flights arriving and departing from the airports used to stage flights
x Provide an evaluation of “bird strikes” by aircraft both in terms of safety to birds and to aircraft and spectators.
x Provide the location and description of any temporary transit and ride share stops, traffic control or traffic safety measures that will be required or provided as part of the Project
9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 7 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
x Identify and describe in detail any emergency response plan that will be implemented in the event of a widespread disaster, or other event that requires assistance from police departments from nearby cities
x Describe any significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
x List the cultural/tribal cultural resources that will be considered and any required mitigation
x Identify and address in detail the biological resources that will be considered/impacted as identified by a variety of sources, including but not limited to, the California Department of Fish and Game’s California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, local habitat conservation plans or policies, as well a variety of other environmental resources, and any proposed mitigation programs
x Provide copies of any wildlife and habitat survey reports done in connection with the Project and the surrounding area
x Describe any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, including the adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency that would impact
nonrenewable resources and the associated impacts that
this consumption could have on future generations
x Identify special consideration and mitigation techniques used for the Project x Identify (1) any hazardous materials, hazardous substances or waste material that currently exist on the Project Site, and (2) any hazardous materials which will be stored and/or used on the Project Site or in the construction of the Project and plans for containment of hazardous materials in the event of a spill or other accident
x Provide details of how the Project, either upon completion or during construction, will meet or fail to meet existing water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface water quality, impact the chemical balance of seawater, or conflict with a water quality control plan x Describe if the Project will generate a substantial increase in ambient noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the Huntington Beach General Plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies or result in generation of excessive vibration or noise levels in the vicinity of the Project, including the flights over adjacent cities x Provide nighttime light or glare, and noise impact analyses for all sensitive receptors impacted by the Project
9-20
(cont.)
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
March 4, 2024

Page 8 ends

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
x Describe mitigation plans, such as the installation of light and noise barriers, placing Project entry and exit points from the Project away from sensitive receptors, and the orientation of public address systems away from sensitive receptors
x Provide details of any construction of new or expansion of existing utilities that could cause significant environmental effects, generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities

8. Conclusion. When executed well, a CEQA analysis promotes sustainable development and builds trust with the public. The EIR for this Project gives the City an opportunity to serve the residents of Huntington Beach and adjacent cities by transparently evaluating, disclosing, and mitigating the environmental impacts of this Project. To serve the community, we ask that the City comprehensively identify and evaluate all the impacts of the Project, particularly those affecting the many nearby sensitive receptors. CEQA entitles the public to full disclosure and mitigation of the environmental impacts of the Project prior to its approval.

Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Richard J. Huffman
Treasurer
Cynthia McDonald
Assistant Treasurer
cc: Cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach
Coastal Corridor Alliance
Fairview Park Alliance
Costa Mesa First’s mission is to educate Costa Mesans about planning policies in Costa Mesa so they make knowledgeable choices when voting. We encourage residents to choose walkable, bikeable, and inclusive neighborhoods, and the land use and transportation policies and investments needed to make Costa Mesa flourish.

Our primary objective is to require Costa Mesa’s leaders to put the residents of Costa Mesa first. 9-20
(cont.)
Attachment B
Letter dated March 4, 2024, to City from Fairview Park Alliance 9-21
March 4, 2024
VIA EMAIL – [email protected]
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project
Dear Mr. Hyland,
Fairview Park Alliance (FPA) is a nonprofit corporation in Costa Mesa dedicated to restoring, protecting, and preserving Fairview Park in Costa Mesa (2525 Placentia Ave.) for all generations in perpetuity. Fairview Park is 208 acres with 5 distinct habitats and home to endangered and threatened plants and wildlife. Autumn is migration season for many birds and many birds depend on Fairview Park for food and rest. The Pacific Airshow has had a negative impact on Fairview Park due to the high decibels of noise, air traffic, and air quality.

FPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project”) to be located in Huntington Beach, California. The Show Center Area and the Airshow Performance Area collectively comprise the project site (“Project Site”). However the Notice of Preparation (NOP) indicates for the purpose of a technical analysis within the draft EIR, a broader study area may be defined that extends beyond the Project Site to reflect the potential impacts associated with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics traveling to/from the Airshow Performance Area.

The City of Huntington Beach is required to follow California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the EIR must contain noise and vibration studies extended outside of the City boundaries to those areas impacted by the noise and vibration originating from the Airshow, like Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, and Randall Preserve.

The EIR must also contain surveys of the surrounding areas, like Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, and Randall Preserve for wildlife and ecologically sensitive habitat and reports must be provided. The migration corridors between habitat areas must be preserved.

Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, and Randall Preserve have sensitive receptors that may be exposed to pollutant receptors and must be included in the air quality study performed in connection with the EIR.

A 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation
Tax ID 82-2238446
Board:

Kim Hendricks
President
Priscilla Rocco
Treasurer
Jason Komala
At-large board member
Mailing Address:

FPA
P.O. Box 2471
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2471
E-Mail Address:
[email protected]
Website:
www.FairviewParkAlliance.org
9-21
(cont.)
2 FPA would like to see a thorough EIR that allows the residents of Huntington Beach and surrounding cities to understand the impacts on their community.

Thank you,
Kim Hendricks
Fairview Park Alliance - President
9-21
(cont.)
Attachment C
Letter dated March 4, 2024, to City from Hamilton Biological 9-22
316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 [email protected]

HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL
March 4, 2024
Mr. Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: C OMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION

PACIFIC AIRSHOW HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT
Dear Mr. Hyland,
On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, I provide these comments on a Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (the City) for the proposed Pa- cific Airshow Huntington Beach project (the proposed project).

EIR MUST EVALUATE POTENTIAL EFFECTS IN NEARBY NATURAL AREAS Although the performance area for the airshow is limited to the largely developed area between Beach Boulevard and Seventh Street in Huntington Beach, the effects of in- creased air traffic and noise will extend up and down the coast, potentially affecting nearby sensitive habitat areas. To the south, near the mouth of the Santa Ana River, is a dedicated nesting area for the California Least Tern, and the Huntington Beach Wet- lands, occupied by another listed species, Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. A short distance inland from the mouth of the Santa Ana River lies the ecologically sensitive Randall Preserve, which supports numerous listed and otherwise “special-status” species, in- cluding Belding’s Savannah Sparrow, California Gnatcatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, and po- tentially Burrowing Owls. To the north of the performance area lies the Bolsa Chica Eco- logical Preserve, which supports a large tern nesting colony, Belding’s Savannah Spar- rows, Western Snowy Plovers, and other sensitive resources.

The project biologists should carefully evaluate the project’s potential adverse effects to bird populations in these important natural areas. In particular, the EIR should cite rele- vant, current research on the effects of aircraft operations and aircraft noise upon nest- ing birds. The EIR must evaluate all potential adverse project effects to nesting birds, and it would be appropriate for the City to provide for biological monitoring of the tern colonies at the Santa Ana River mouth and at Bolsa Chica to improve understanding of the extent to which airshow activities do or do not affect colonial nesting birds in the nearby area. If potentially significant impacts are identified that cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation must be provided.
9-22
(cont.)
}
}
}
NOP Comments, Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Hamilton Biological, Inc.

March 4, 2024 Page 2 of 2

EIR MUST EVALUATE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF NOCTURNAL ACTIVITIES The EIR must also evaluate the potential effects of nocturnal project activities (“Airshow performer private party and live music entertainment with nighttime flyovers by desig- nated aircraft including parachute jumps onto the beach occurring during the evening hours of the of the music festival”). These activities are proposed to occur as late as 11:00 p.m., which could disrupt nesting of California Least Terns or other birds in natu- ral areas near the performance area. For example, if nighttime flyovers startle terns off their nests, this could lead to increased predation of the nests or even abandonment of nests. The EIR must evaluate all such potential adverse project effects, and it would be appropriate for the City to provide for biological monitoring of the tern colonies at the Santa Ana River mouth and at Bolsa Chica to improve understanding of the extent to which nocturnal airshow activities do or do not affect colonial nesting birds in the nearby area. If potentially significant impacts are identified that cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation must be provided.

CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the NOP for the proposed airshow project.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hamilton, President
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
316 Monrovia Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90803
562-477-2181
[email protected]
cc: Terry Welsh, President, Coastal Corridor Alliance
Melanie Schlotterbeck, Stewardship Consultant, Coastal Corridor Alliance 9-22
(cont.)
N
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-126 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 9: Costa Mesa First
Response to Comment 9-1
In the Costa Mesa First comment letter, dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment A), the commentor notes “Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project” to be located in Huntington Beach, California.” Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to those Notice of Preparation comments that were specifically raised in the Costa Mesa First Draft EIR comment letter.

In the Fairview Park Alliance comment letter dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment B and included in this Response to Comments during under Comment Letter 10), the commentor notes that “FPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project” to be located in Huntington Beach, California.” Accordingly, this Response to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to the Draft EIR, dated February 2025. Refer to Response to Comment 9-10 regarding noise and vibration studies beyond the City boundaries.

Refer to Response to Comment 9-14 regarding why no additional air quality analyses are required for the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park.

In the Hamilton Biological comment letter dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment C and included in this Response to Comments document under Comment Letter 11), the commentor notes “On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, I provided these comments on a Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (the City) for the proposed Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach project (the proposed project).”Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to Draft EIR, dated February 2025. For the evaluation of potential effects in nearby natural areas and the evaluation of potential effects of nocturnal activities, please refer to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR. Also, please refer to Master Response C regarding nesting season and Response to Comment 2-15 regarding biological monitoring.

Response to Comment 9-2
The letter dated April 7, 2025, prepared by Costa Mesa First, is included in the Project record and is responded to here under Comment Letter 9. All comments will be appropriately responded to by the City herein Chapter 3, Responses to Comments, within the Final EIR for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project. In some instances, in response to the comment, the City has made additions or deletions to the text of the Draft EIR and included in Chapter 4, Corrections and Additions. The revisions do not significantly alter the conclusions in the Draft EIR.

Therefore, the Draft EIR is not required for recirculation per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

The City will notify Costa Mesa First regarding the availability of any applicable future documents associated with the Project.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-127 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 9-3
This comment summarizes the Project Description and is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 9-4
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-1, of the Draft EIR, the Show Center Area is the location where primary on-the-ground events and activities of the Airshow take place, which is located in the City of Huntington Beach. Locally, the approximate boundaries of the Show Center Area from northwest to southeast are 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1 or SR-1) to Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 or SR-39) and Pacific Coast Highway to the Pacific Ocean including a portion of the Huntington Beach Pier landward of the State Lands Commission mean high tide line. The Airshow Performance Area, the primary area for civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, is located adjacent to the Show Center Area over the Pacific Ocean with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 feet from the shoreline and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 feet. A majority of the civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics occur within approximately 500 and 1,500 feet from the shoreline. The Airshow Performance Area, or the aerobatic box, is identified by large marker buoys placed in the ocean that identify this area.

In compliance with the provision of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085(a) and 15087, the City of Huntington Beach, serving as the Lead Agency: (1) prepared and transmitted a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse; (2) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR which indicated that this Draft EIR was available for public review at the City’s Community Development Department, the Huntington Beach Central Library, and the City’s Website; (3) provided copies of the NOA and Draft EIR to the City’s Community Development Department, the Huntington Beach Central Library; (4) posted the NOA and the Draft EIR on the City’s Website:
www.huntingtonbeachca.gov; (5) published legal notice (1/8 th page) in the Huntington Beach Wave;
(6) sent a NOA to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who previously requested such notice in writing or attended public meetings about the Project; and (7) filed the NOA with the County Clerk. The City of Newport Beach and the City of Costa Mesa was notified as both cities are included in the City of Huntington Beach’s interested parties list.

Proof of publication is available at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division.

Response to Comment 9-5
As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, Section 4.3.1, Offsite Location, page 4-3, the Offsite Location Alternative would aim to be located further from sensitive biological resources.

Sensitive habitat is located along the coastline including the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and the BCER. In order to be located away from the areas that contain more sensitive biological resources, the site would likely need to be at a more inland location, where there would be less space for attendees to congregate as well as fewer areas to view the Airshow compared to the proposed Project Site. In addition, the likelihood of finding a location that would be able to accommodate the number of activities planned (Airshow, music festival, wave pool surf competitions, skateboard/BMX event, etc.) for the Airshow would be low.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-128 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

This Alternative was considered infeasible due to the fact that there are very few, if any, other locations within the City that are City-owned and would be able to provide the services and area for the Airshow to be conducted and viewed. The alternative site would need to be up to approximately 100 acres in size in order to accommodate the parking, viewing areas, and other activities. Per the CEQA guidelines, the Offsite Location Alternative was rejected as infeasible using the criteria for off-site alternatives, including site suitability, economic viability, jurisdictional boundaries, whether the project proponent owns the site, and whether the project proponent can control site access.

Some of the alternative sites considered that would be large enough to accommodate the activities include Edison High School and Central Park located in the City. Edison was rejected because this site would be closer to the Huntington Beach wetlands complex, and therefore, not necessarily further from sensitive biological resources. Central Park was also rejected due to the sensitive habitat and species that are present throughout the Park. Central Park has three freshwater lakes that are used by waterfowl and other birds. Portions of Central Park are also located closer to the BCER. Therefore, due to the proximity of sensitive habitat and sensitive species at the two locations most appropriate to be considered as alternative sites, these locations would not reduce impacts to biological resources
Response to Comment 9-6
In regards to public access, refer to Response to Comment 1-6. As discussed under Response to Comment 1-6, during the Airshow and multi-day music festival, and only during event operation and music festival hours, public access would be limited to ticketed holders within the defined areas through the use of fencing and Airshow personnel and security. Only approximately 8 percent of the available sandy beach space is occupied by the ticketed areas and all other areas of the sandy beach, including substantially all of the other public spaces, are free to view spaces.

Further, similar to the Airshow, the Applicant will consider providing free general admission tickets during each night of the music festival to the general public primarily to (a) students, (b) underserved youth and (c) their respective caregivers or guardians. A report of how the tickets were distributed shall be made available within 30 days post event upon written request from the California Coastal Commission. The Airshow is not violating laws of environmental justice.

Response to Comment 9-7
The comment correctly indicates that the Draft EIR concluded that future Project Airshow mobile sources associated with additional daily VMT from the expanded night concerts as compared to prior Airshows were estimated through emissions calculations, using the CARB EMFAC2021 on-road vehicle emissions factor model to determine emission factors, and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce operational VOC, NOX, and CO emissions for vehicular sources to below the significance thresholds as discussed in Section 3.1, Air Quality, pages 3.1-22 and 3.1-23, of the Draft EIR. In addition, as described on page 3.1-20 of the Draft EIR, since the Project’s future Airshow aircraft activities, competitions and art installations, temporary event structures, multi-day music festivals and temporary Airshow pyrotechnic display are expected to be similar as those featured in prior Airshows or would not result in new emissions, these emissions were not considered in the Draft Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-129 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

EIR (see page 3.1-20 of the Draft EIR, for additional details). The comment fails to specify why using estimated emissions calculations to discuss the Project’s air quality impacts were insufficient and what specific “study data” the Draft EIR is missing. As such, the estimated emissions calculations and impact conclusions determined in the Draft EIR are sufficient and no further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-8
The comment incorrectly claims that the Project may cause CO hotspots due to queuing of traffic as a result of the Project. The Project’s potential to cause CO hotspots was not discussed in the Project’s Draft EIR, but the Project’s Initial Study. As discussed on page 3-13 and 3-14 of the Project’s Initial Study, while the Project may result in an increase in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as a result of future Airshow events compared to the prior and existing Airshow events, the CO concentrations in the vicinity are substantially below the CAAQS and NAAQS where as reported in the Project’s Initial Study, the SCAQMD monitoring data from 2021 at the monitoring site located nearest to the Project indicates a maximum CO concentration of 2.3 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour) compared to the 20 ppm (1-hour) CAAQS and a maximum concentration of 1.7 ppm (8-hour) compared to the 9.0 ppm (8-hour) CAAQS and the 9 ppm (8- hour) NAAQS. Furthermore, based on the latest SCAQMD available for year 2023, the monitoring site located nearest to the Project indicates a maximum CO concentration of 2.4 parts per million (ppm) (1-hour) and a maximum concentration of 1.9 ppm (8-hour), which are still much lower than the relevant CAAQS and NAAQS. Therefore, as discussed in the Project’s Initial Study, not only have CO concentrations have declined compared to previous decades primarily as a result of improvements in vehicle emissions standards. As vehicle emissions continue to decline from improvements in vehicle emissions standards and zero emissions vehicles (e.g., electric vehicles), the Project would not cause or contribute to CO hotspots from Project vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, or vehicle congestion on major roadways or intersections. Thus, the Project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to CO hotspots and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, as discussed in the Project’s Initial Study, no further analysis of CO hotspots was required in the EIR. In addition, the incorrectly describes that Project traffic would combine with nonevent day traffic to cause CO hotspots. However, the Project would not affect vehicle trips on nonevent days and CO emissions associated with background traffic is not affected by the Project. As such, the findings of the Project’s Initial Study that the Project would not result in CO hotspot and impact conclusions determined in the Project’s Initial Study are sufficient and no further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-9
The Draft EIR evaluates traffic on key corridors in the City of Huntington Beach that connect to regional routes. While temporary increases in traffic may occur on regional facilities, these impacts are comparable to those from other special events that freeways and highways are designed to accommodate. Examples of comparably scaled activities:
• Los Angeles Angels (81 games annually)
• Anaheim Ducks (41 games annually)
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-130 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

• Orange County Fair (4 weeks annually)
• Concerts at various venues
These events are typical and distribute traffic broadly across the regional system. As such, they are not evaluated with respect to localized emergency access for multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, it is not possible to evaluate every hypothetical emergency scenario outside the Project area. The location and nature of potential emergencies is nearly infinite. The Draft EIR appropriately scopes the analysis to reflect the temporary and localized nature of the Project.

Further, the City of Huntington Beach has developed a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Emergency Operations Plan that includes coordination with adjacent cities and agencies. The Airshow’s Public Safety Plan, in coordination with the Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD) and the Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD), identifies roles, staging areas, and operational controls for crowd and traffic management during emergencies. While specific evacuation routes in neighboring cities are not analyzed, the Project does not propose to physically alter or block any regional evacuation corridors.

Response to Comment 9-10
Aircraft operations during future Airshows may temporarily exceed the cities established noise limits during daytime and nighttime hours, including noise sensitive land uses. Data collected during the 2023 Airshow indicates that noise levels could surpass the City’s established noise limits by as much as 50 dB. However, these elevated noise levels are expected to be brief and not sustained over long periods. The purpose of noise monitoring was for informational purposes to understand the range of aircraft noise levels that may be experiences in close proximity to the Airshow. While measurements were not taken in other jurisdictions, it can be assumed that noise levels would be similar, or less, to those taken at the six location identified in the Draft EIR.

To mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on the surrounding community, event organizers have integrated several noise-reduction strategies into the Airshow’s planning. These include recommending aircraft adhere to predetermined flight paths that are carefully designed to avoid residential areas whenever possible and keeping aircraft operations over water to the greatest extent feasible, reducing noise exposure for inland areas further from the coast. However, neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. . While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities..

Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-131 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 9-11
The Project area examines impacts along the proposed flight path and a 500-foot buffer to encompass potential changes based on weather conditions, flight traffic, and other factors considered by air traffic controllers. For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 9-12
The Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix D) outlines why there is no suitable habitat for special-status species within the Show Center Area and a low potential for special- status species within the BCER.

The TFR spans a 5-mile radius and extends from the surface up to 15,000 feet MSL. This restriction is specifically designed to keep commercial and general aviation aircraft out of the designated Airshow airspace. By doing so, the TFR allows Airshow participants to safely reposition their aircraft within the restricted airspace for their performances, eliminating the risk of conflicts with unauthorized aircraft. At all times, the FAA, the Applicant, and pilots are committed to the safe operation of aircraft. While the pilot has ultimate control of the aircraft while in flight, the FAA has the primary role of ensuring safe and efficient use of the National Airspace System (NAS). Aircraft will adhere to the predetermined flight path as much as possible. As noted in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.2.1 Environmental Setting, pages 3.2-1 and 3.2.-2, the proposed flight path and a 500-foot buffer was examined. This biological study area (BSA) does not overlap sensitive ecological areas including Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park. Additionally, biological monitoring and surveys have been conducted prior to and during the 2023 Airshow to identify potential impacts on bird behavior and none were observed. The Draft EIR also determined that the temporarily impacted areas would not significantly inhibit local or regional movement of wildlife within these avoided areas of the BSA. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 9-13
Refer to Response to Comment 9-14, 9-15, and 9-16 below for a discussion on impacts to air quality, noise, and transportation.

Response to Comment 9-14
As stated by the comment, the Project Draft EIR describes that there would be a significant and unavoidable regional operational air quality impact with regard to additional daily VMT from the expanded music festival as compared to prior Airshows. However, the comment is conflating the Project’s regional operational impact as also being a localized operational air quality impact. As described in the Section 3.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the Project’s local air quality impacts are discussed in the Project’s Initial Study (Appendix B) and subsequently scoped out of the Draft Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-132 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

EIR as the Initial Study determined there would be no potential for construction or construction- related ground disturbance generating substantial localized emissions since the Airshow proposes no new permanent development and only consists of temporary event structures, all of which would be removed immediately following the conclusion of the Airshow. In addition, the Initial Study determined the Project would result in similar on-site operational emissions since: aircraft staging, maintenance, preparation activities, aircraft flight familiarization and aircraft flight practice flyers, and performance flyovers throughout the Airshow Performance Area, and temporary event structures for the Project would be similar to prior airshows; the Project’s competitions and art installations would not result in new emissions from on-site activities; and the temporary Airshow pyrotechnic display would occur over water, similar to the City’s annual 4th of July Fireworks Over The Ocean and would not result in permanent effects on the environment (see the Project’s Initial Study, Appendix B, of the Draft EIR for additional details). Thus, the Initial Study determined the Project would not involve construction or operations that would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant and scoped out of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Initial Study did not include the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park in the list of sensitive receptors because the Initial Study listed the sensitive receptors within a quarter-mile radius of the Project boundary and these three receptors are further than those listed in the Initial Study. As noted in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.2.1 Environmental Setting, pages

3.2-1 and 3.2.-2, the proposed flight path and a 500-foot buffer was examined. This BSA does not overlap sensitive ecological areas including Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 within the Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the closest portions of the Project’s Show Center and Airshow Performance Area, where the Project’s majority of localized emissions would occur, would be over 2.0 miles from the closest portion of the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve and Talbert Regional Park, and over 2.8 miles from Fairview Park. Therefore, as the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park are located at greater distances from the Project Site as compared to those listed in the Initial Study, these three receptors would be less impacted by localized Project emissions. Therefore, no additional air quality analyses are required for the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park and the Initial Study’s conclusion that the Project would not involve construction or operations that would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant remains unchanged and no further response is needed.

Neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities.. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-133 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 9-15
Refer to Response to Comment 9-10.

Response to Comment 9-16
The Project would result in traffic volumes like other special events (refer to Response to Comment 9-9) which freeways and state highways are designed to support. Traffic volumes from the Project will diminish with distance from the Project, and the exact roadways that will be used are unpredictable beyond the City. Level of service traffic impacts are not allowed as a measure of environmental impact related to transportation/traffic subsequent to the State’s adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 743 (July 2020).

Regarding construction traffic, the Project involves only temporary setup and breakdown of event infrastructure. Equipment can be delivered via SR-1 and adopted truck routes throughout the City. These routes regularly support heavy vehicles, and the Project is not anticipated to generate oversized loads. Given the modest scale of set up and site breakdown activities, alternative construction routes are not warranted, and the Draft EIR appropriately scopes the analysis to reflect the scale and temporary nature of the Project.

Response to Comment 9-17
Refer to Response to Comment 9-1 and 9-2.

Response to Comment 9-18
Refer to Response to Comment 9-1 and 9-2.

Response to Comment 9-19
Refer to Response to Comment 9-1 and 9-2.

Response to Comment 9-20
In the Costa Mesa First comment letter, dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment A), the commentor notes “Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project” to be located in Huntington Beach, California.” Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to those Notice of Preparation comments that were specifically raised in the Costa Mesa First Draft EIR comment letter. No further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-21
In the Fairview Park Alliance comment letter dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment B and included in this Response to Comments during under Comment Letter 10), the commentor notes that “FPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project” to be located in Huntington Beach, California.” Accordingly, this Response to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to the Draft EIR, dated Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-134 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

February 2025. Refer to Response to Comment 9-10 regarding noise and vibration studies beyond the City boundaries. Refer to Response to Comment 9-14 regarding why no additional air quality analyses are required for the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park. No further response is required.

Response to Comment 9-22
In the Hamilton Biological comment letter dated March 4, 2024 (herein referred to as Attachment C and included in this Response to Comments document under Comment Letter 11), the commentor notes “On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, I provided these comments on a Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (the City) for the proposed Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach project (the proposed project).”Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to Draft EIR, dated February 2025. For the evaluation of potential effects in nearby natural areas and the evaluation of potential effects of nocturnal activities, please refer to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR. Also, please refer to Master Response C regarding nesting season and Response to Comment 2-15 regarding biological monitoring. No further response is required.

March 4, 2024

VIA EMAIL – [email protected]

Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Re: Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project

Dear Mr. Hyland,

Fairview Park Alliance (FPA) is a nonprofit corporation in Costa Mesa dedicated to restoring, protecting, and preserving Fairview Park in Costa Mesa (2525 Placentia Ave.) for all generations in perpetuity. Fairview Park is 208 acres with 5 distinct habitats and home to endangered and threatened plants and wildlife. Autumn is migration season for many birds and many birds depend on Fairview Park for food and rest. The Pacific Airshow has had a negative impact on Fairview Park due to the high decibels of noise, air traffic, and air quality.

A 501(c)(3) non-profit
corporation
Tax ID 82-2238446

Board:

Kim Hendricks
President
Priscilla Rocco
Treasurer
Jason Komala
At-large board member

Mailing Address
:

FPA
P.O. Box 2471
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2471

E-
Mail Address:

[email protected]

Website
:
www.FairviewParkAlliance.org
Comment Letter 10
10-1
2 FPA would like to see a thorough EIR that allows the residents of Huntington Beach and surrounding cities to understand the impacts on their community.

Thank you,

Kim Hendricks
Fairview Park Alliance - President

10-1
(cont.)
3 Sincerely,

Name
Title
Fairview Park Alliance
10-1
(cont.)
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-138 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 10: Fairview Park Alliance
Response to Comment 10-1
In the Fairview Park Alliance comment letter dated March 4, 2024, the commentor notes that “FPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed expansion of the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (the “Project” to be located in Huntington Beach, California.” Accordingly, this Response to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to the Draft EIR, dated February 2025. Refer to Response to Comment 9-10 regarding noise and vibration studies beyond the City boundaries. Refer to Response to Comment 9-14 regarding why no additional air quality analyses are required for the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, and Talbert Regional Park. No further response is required.

316 Monrovia Avenue Long Beach, CA 90803 562-477-2181 [email protected]

HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL

March 4, 2024

Mr. Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

SUBJECT: C OMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION

P ACIFIC AIRSHOW HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT

Dear Mr. Hyland,
On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, I provide these comments on a Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (the City) for the proposed Pa- cific Airshow Huntington Beach project (the proposed project).

Comment Letter 11
11-1
}
}
}
NOP Comments, Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Hamilton Biological, Inc.

March 4, 2024 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSION
On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the NOP for the proposed airshow project.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hamilton, President
Hamilton Biological, Inc.
316 Monrovia Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90803
562-477-2181
[email protected]
cc: Terry Welsh, President, Coastal Corridor Alliance
Melanie Schlotterbeck, Stewardship Consultant, Coastal Corridor Alliance 11-1
(cont.)
N
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-141 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 11: Hamilton Biological
Response to Comment 11-1
In their comment letter dated March 4, 2024, the commentor notes “On behalf of the Coastal Corridor Alliance, I provided these comments on a Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (the City) for the proposed Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach project (the proposed project).”Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised in the Draft EIR, not the Notice of Preparation. Please refer to Draft EIR, dated February 2025. For the evaluation of potential effects in nearby natural areas and the evaluation of potential effects of nocturnal activities, please refer to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR. Also, please refer to Master Response C regarding nesting season and Response to Comment 2-15 regarding biological monitoring. No further response is required.

Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2412
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
700 North Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Michelle N. Black
Email Address:
[email protected]
April 7, 2025
Via Email [email protected]
Mr. Connor Hyland
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street, 4th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project, SCH No. 2024020006
Dear Mr. Hyland,
We submit these comments on behalf of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT) in connection with the City’s consideration of the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) for the Pacific Airshow Project (Project). The Bolsa Chica Land Trust was formed in 1992 to preserve one of the last standing wetland ecosystems in Southern California. BCLT now has over 5,000 members dedicated to protecting, preserving, restoring, educating, and advocating for Bolsa Chica’s future.

In its past correspondence with the City about the Airshow, BCLT has sought one thing – avoidance of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve by the low- flying aircraft affiliated with the Airshow. With its DEIR comments, BCLT repeats this reasonable request and asks the City to revise the DEIR to:
(1) Include the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER) within the project area analyzed in the DEIR. During past airshows, many of the show’s aircraft have flown over at low altitude, with documented adverse impacts to wildlife.
(2) Revise the Project scope to include the seven days leading up to the airshow. In past years, the greatest impacts to wildlife and the BCER have occurred prior to, not during, the airshow occurring during pre-show flyovers.

Comment Letter 12
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
<$BM
I
I
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 2 ends

(3)Prohibit airshows during nesting season. Terns and plovers are especially vulnerable, and the Project terms do not limit the months during which the airshow may be held. We request that the show not take place during the nesting season and months during which there is coastal avian migration in the region. The 2024 Airshow occurred the week after peak migration along the Pacific Flyway.

(4)Impose a prohibition on BCER overflights. If extenuating circumstances require overflights, an elevation buffer must be strictly enforced and BCER reserve management (CDFW) must be notified prior to and/or immediately following the flyover.

For several years, BCLT and the state and federal wildlife agencies responsible for the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and the enforcement of state and federal wildlife laws have documented and raised concerns about the airshow’s impact to sensitive species and habitat. Accordingly, the EIR was required to disclose, analyze, and mitigate any impacts of these overflights to biological resources. Instead, the EIR ignores these well-documented concerns, claiming, without evidence, that the Project would not include BCER overflights.

The EIR compounds this error by then finding the airshow will have no significant impacts and requires no mitigation.

As the City, Operator, and the managing state and federal wildlife agencies know, the airshow’s pre-show flights do, in fact, fly over the Reserve every year. If the Project contained enforceable mitigation prohibiting flyovers of the Reserve at any time, the DEIR’s conclusions might be supportable.

However, without such a condition, the DEIR’s conclusions lack the requisite substantial evidence. This is particularly important given that the DEIR discloses future plans to expand the airshow to five show days, as opposed to the three historically conducted. Approval of this Project without first disclosing the Project’s full scope, analyzing the impacts of the true project on species, and fully mitigating those impacts violates CEQA.

I. The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project.

The Pacific Airshow has historically been held in the fall for three days (Friday through Sunday), with practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the airshow. While flyovers have generally occurred during the day, other airshow events extend into the night, as late as 10 pm. The DEIR states that the City anticipates future airshows may extend to five days, with events 12-5
12-6
12-7
12-8
12-9
I
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 3 ends

lasting until 11 pm. The Project would authorize ten years of airshows pursuant to the City’s Specific Event Permit Process. New events include nighttime flyovers, multi-day air racing, and a beach helipad.

II. The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.

The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve consists of approximately 1,400 acres of coastal estuary adjacent to Huntington Beach. It was established to preserve and protect coastal wildlife and habitat. BCER is the largest saltwater marsh between Monterey Bay and the Tijuana River Estuary. It is managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and owned by the State Lands Commission and CDFW. BCER is home to over 800 species of plants and animals, including 24 species that are threatened, endangered, or of special concern.

III. Aircraft Fly Over the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, with Documented Impacts to Sensitive Species.

BCLT, wildlife agencies, and members of the public have documented myriad airshow impacts on biological resources that require evaluation, future avoidance, and mitigation under CEQA. State agencies have documented repeated, low aircraft passes over the wetlands, the startling noise of the jets, and repeated flushing of birds from the Reserve. In 2022, the Army dropped streamers into the Reserve. In 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote to the City to warn that it had noticed aircraft transit above BCER and that the noise and vibration from such transit could disrupt sensitive wildlife. During the 2024 airshow, hundreds of birds were flushed by repeated midday flyovers of the BCER. Video of this incident was provided to the Operator. Affected birds included species of special concern. BCLT attaches the letters of CDFW, the State Lands Commission, California Coastal Commission, and BCLT documenting these flyovers and BCER impacts.

IV. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Potential Impacts to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and Sensitive Species.

a. CEQA Requirements.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted to promote decision making that protects the environment through information gathering and public accountability.
12-9
(cont.)
12-10
12-11
12-12
1 Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 4 ends

The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire project, from start to finish. … The EIR is intended to furnish both the road map and the environmental price tag for a project, so that the decision maker and the public both know, before the journey begins, just where the journey will lead, and how much they -- and the environment -- will have to give up in order to take that journey.

(Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, 271.)

CEQA requires a “mandatory finding of significance” if a project has the potential to “substantially degrade the quality of the environment. ...” (Guidelines §15065(a)(1).) An EIR must also disclose, analyze and mitigate the impacts of a project when they may:

• Have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any … sensitive natural community;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands; or
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory…wildlife species or … wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, §§ IV(a), (c), (d). The Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve hosts both migratory and resident special-status species, contains sensitive natural communities, and contains state and federally protected wetlands.

b. The DEIR Fails to Accurately Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate the Impacts of Aircraft Flights Over the Reserve.

In response to the complaints documented by the managing wildlife agencies, extensive meetings about the airshow, its impacts, and requested mitigation were conducted in which the wildlife agencies met with the City and Operator. The agencies provided documentation of the airshow’s past harm to 12-12
(cont.)
12-13
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 5 ends

wildlife and evidence of overflights. None of this information is reflected in the conclusions or mitigation of the DEIR. This violates CEQA’s informational disclosure provisions. As currently written, the EIR paints a misleading and inaccurate picture of the Project’s significant impacts on sensitive wildlife. (Citizens to Pres. the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 430- 432 [EIR may not understate information concerning severity of impacts and skew perspective to downplay seriousness of impact]; Mountain Lion Coalition v.

Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1050-1051 [EIR may not avoid well-known important environmental considerations and sweep “serious criticisms [] under the rug”]; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 104 [overruled on other grounds] [EIR fails as an informational document by omitting or ignoring contrary information]; Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 724 [agency must produce relevant environmental data and may not avoid attack on adequacy of EIR by excluding such information].)

While the DEIR recognizes that “[c]oncerns with biological resources, impacts to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve” were raised in connection with the Notice of Preparation (ES-5 [citing Exhibit A comments of wildlife agencies]), the DEIR finds the Project has no potential to adversely affect biological resources, even without mitigation. (ES-9.) Given that the wildlife agencies have documented environmental harm from past airshows, and that the Project includes no restrictions on overflights of the BCER nor even overflight altitude limits, this conclusion lacks substantial evidence.

Critically, the DEIR restricts its review to a project area that appears limited to the pier and general surrounding area and to the main airshow days where attendance is paid. While this may be the area wherein flights are planned during the main airshow, the full Project area is much larger, and evidence demonstrates this area includes the BCER. CEQA Guidelines § 15125 (c) explains:

Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be place on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and that would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed …

The DEIR’s failure to include BCER in the study area violates CEQA.

12-13
(cont.)
12-14
12-15
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 6 ends

The Project also includes several days of practice flights seemingly omitted from the environmental review. These practice flights fly over BCER – every year. CEQA requires environmental review to evaluate the “whole of a project.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15003(h).) Nothing permits an EIR to arbitrarily exclude portions of a project or its operating area from environmental review. A “curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public support.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1981) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 197-98.) The DEIR must be revised to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the impacts of these overflights.

The DEIR further disclaims any City or airshow control over where aircraft will fly, based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s regulation of airspace. However, FAA Advisory Circular No. 91-36D expressly recommends that aircraft avoid noise-sensitive areas because, “[e]xcessive aircraft noise can … adversely affect wildlife” which is “particularly undesirable in … wildlife refuges.” Thus, the airshow should be subject to prohibition on BCER overflights outside of emergency conditions wherein flights may need to be redirected.

The DEIR states, “preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project, at least one day prior to the Airshow …” (DEIR pp. 2-10 and 2011.) However, preactivity monitoring for impacts to birds and to prevent the dropping of debris (such as the streamers dropped in 2022) should occur on all days airshow-related aviation will occur. However, impacts to the birds and wildlife at BCER would be better avoided, and likely eliminated, by prohibiting airshow-related overflights of the BCER.

c. The DEIR Relies on an Inaccurate Environmental Baseline.

Another basis for the EIR’s unsupported claim of no significant biological impacts is its use of an inaccurate baseline. CEQA requires an EIR to examine the difference between with-project and without-project conditions. (See, CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a).) An inflated baseline obscures a project’s true environmental impact, infecting the DEIR’s entire analysis and preventing necessary mitigation.

The Project Description states, “Numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft currently fly over the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER) and helicopters regularly land at a helipad over the BCER.” (DEIR p. 2-10.) The DEIR uses this information to conclude that airshow-associated overflights would not adversely affect BCER because these ongoing activities have not 12-16
12-17
12-18
12-19
12-20
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 7 ends

harmed wildlife. This description is inaccurate. While an oil company helipad is located adjacent to the Reserve, helicopter flights do not fly over the majority of BCER. These infrequent flights are coordinated with CDFW and travel only over a small portion of the southern tip of the Reserve.

Evidence submitted to the City and Operator demonstrates airshow- related disturbances of sensitive bird species documented by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Lands Commission, and California Coastal Commission. Even smaller and quieter aircraft have caused significant environmental impacts at BCER.

Additionally, while commercial and private aircraft may travel over the Reserve, such flights occur at much higher elevations than airshow-associated aircraft have traveled over the Reserve. Past airshow overflights occurred far below the 1,000-foot floor the DEIR claims will be used in the future, including some too low to be recorded by radar. Jets have been observed travelling 200 - 1,000 feet above BCER.

Moreover, the Project’s unenforceable “request” to keep overflights more than 1,000 above ground level is insufficient. Airshow jets already disregard requests to avoid BCER. Preliminarily, a mere request is speculative and insufficient as CEQA mitigation. Mitigation measures that “are not guaranteed to occur at any particular time or in any particular manner” are inadequate. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281; Gray v.

County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119.) Beyond this, FAA Advisory Circular No. 91-36D, submitted to the City and Operator by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, recommends full “[a]voidance of noise-sensitive areas.” If that cannot occur, overflights should maintain an altitude of more than 2,000 feet above ground level.

d. Enforceable Mitigation Must be Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Impacts to the Bolsa Chica Ecological
Reserve and Sensitive Species.

As a CEQA-compliant review of the Project will confirm that past airshows have included overflights of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, and that these overflights have had adverse impacts on sensitive wildlife and protected wetland habitat, the EIR must be revised to include enforceable mitigation.

12-20
(cont.)
12-21
12-22
12-23
12-24
1 Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 8 ends

These mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.6(b).) “The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and then neglected or disregarded.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261; Katzeff v.

California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601, 612; Lincoln Place Tenants Assn v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491.)

The Project must be revised to include a condition prohibiting overflights of BCER, before and during the airshow. The DEIR contains a project objective described as: “Provide an event that reduces potential impacts to the surrounding sensitive habitat including the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and special-status wildlife species such as the federally endangered California least tern and western snowy plover.” (ES-2.) A mitigation measure prohibiting BCER overflights supports this project objective by protecting BCER, California least terns, and western snowy plovers.

As previously commented by BCLT, Orange County is no stranger to implementing reasonable buffers on aircraft activity to minimize local impacts.

John Wayne Airport’s noise curfew, instituted to protect local residents from sleep disturbances, is one well-known example. The City must implement similarly reasonable buffers on aircraft activity over BCLT to prevent adverse impacts to wildlife.

V. Violations of the City’s Noise Ordinance Must be Recognized as Significant.

While the DEIR admits the Project would exceed the City’s noise ordinance, it quickly concludes that issuance of a Noise Deviation Permit will obviate the impact. However, this is not the intent of Municipal Code section

8.40. As the Project will violate the municipal code in a manner that cannot be fully mitigated, the EIR must conclude the Project will have a significant and unavoidable impact after incorporating all feasible mitigation. Only then can the City, separately, determine the benefits of the Project outweigh the harms, issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and consider a Noise Deviation Permit.

The Bolsa Chica Land Trust urges the City prohibit flyovers from the Airshow over the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, and to work in good faith with 12-24
(cont.)
12-25
Department of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 9 ends

the managing agencies to ensure that the EIR is in compliance with CEQA and that no further impacts from future Airshows occur at BCER.

Sincerely,

M i c h e l l e B l a c k

Enclosures

1. June 29, 2023 letter from Carstens, Black & Minteer, LLP

2. August 25, 2023 letter from California State Lands Commission and California Department of Fish and Wildlife

3. February 20, 2024 letter from California State Lands Commission and California Department of Fish and Wildlife

4. February 21, 2024 letter from California Coastal Commission

5. March 4, 2024 letter from California State Lands Commission re NOP

6. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular No. 91-36D, dated September 17, 2004

Cc:

Mr. Andrew Willis, California Coastal Commission,
[email protected]

Ms. Wendy Hall, M.S., California State Lands Commission, [email protected]

Ms. Melissa Borde, California State Lands Commission,
[email protected]
12-25
(cont.)1

E
XHIBIT 1

Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2400 Ext. 5
CBM
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Michelle N. Black
Email Address:
[email protected]
92)

#
#

60$)0-2/%
-8=
%2%+)6
-8=3*928-2+832)%',

%-2!86))8
928-2+832)%',

77,0)=#=73'/-
'8-2+31192-8=!)6:-')7-6)'836
-8=3*928-2+832)%',

%-2!86))8
928-2+832)%',

!

)%6
6$)0-2/%%2(
7#=73'/-
!-2') 8,)307%,-'%%2("6978",%7%(:3'%8)(*368,)46)7)6:%8-32 %2(6)7836%8-323*928-2+832)%',A7307%,-'%(FRORJLFDO5HVHUYH",6)%87838,) (FRORJLFDO5HVHUYH%2(-877)27-8-:)40%28%2(%2-1%074)'-)7%6)32+3-2+%2(-2'09() &38,032+8)61():)0341)28%2(7,368)68)6174)'-%0):)28779',%78,) %'-*-'
-67,3;'966)280=7',)(90)(*36!)48)1&)6
'83&)6

%78%-67,3;7,%:)
'%97)()2:-6321)28%0(%1%+)(3'91)28)(&=&38,"%2(78%8);-0(0-*)%+)2'-)72 36()683%:3-(*9896))2:-6321)28%0,%617;,-0)%003;-2+%&)03:)():)2883+3*36;%6( "96+)78,)-8=83'3140=;-8,8,)%0-*362-%2:-6321)28%09%0-8='8 46-3683-779-2+4)61-87*368,)

%'-*-'-67,3;
",)-8=-76)59-6)(83'3140=;-8,&)*36)%4463:-2+%2=(-7'6)8-32%6= ?463.)'8@8,%81%=6)7908-2%7-+2-*-'%28%2(%(:)67))2:-6321)28%0-14%'8",) %'-*-'
-67,3;A74)61-87%6)?463.)'87@92()678,)-8='%2()'-();,)8,)63623883 %4463:)4)61-87*368,)
%'-*-'-67,3;%2(%78,)-8='%2'32(-8-328,)7)4)61-878,) -779%2')3*4)61-87*368,)%-67,3;-7%(-7'6)8-32%6=%'8-3292()6 12-26

8-7%073'0)%68,%84%78
%'-*-'-67,3;7,%:),%(7-+2-*-'% 28%(:)67)-14%'8732 ;-0(0-*)%2(,%&-8%8%88,)307%,-'%;)80%2(7!-2')6)59-6)746)4%6%8-323*%2 )2:-6321)28%0-14%'86)4368 ;,)2):)6%463.)'8?1%=@'%97)%7-+2-*-'%28%2( %(:)67))2:-6321)28%0)**)'8%2 -76)59-6)(,)6)36)<%140)8,) %'-*-'-67,3;
;-00'0)%60=:-30%8)8,)-8=A723-7)36(-2%2')
92-'-4%03()7)'8-32
",978,)
):)28;-00,%:)%7-+2-*-'%28%2(%(:)67)-14%'83223-7)8,%86)59-6)746)4%6%8-323*%2
";-0(0-*)%+)2'-)7%2(1)1&)673*8,)49&0-',%:)(3'91)28)(1=6-%( %-67,3;-14%'8732&-303+-'%06)7396')78,%86)59-6)):%09%8-32*9896)%:3-(%2')%2( 1-8-+%8-3292()6!8%8)%+)2'-)7,%:)(3'91)28)(6)4)%8)(03;%-6'6%*84%77)7 3:)68,);)80%2(78,)78%680-2+23-7)3*8,).)87%2(6)4)%8)(*097,-2+3*&-6(7*6318,) 6)7)6:)**)'8)(&-6(7-2'09()(74)'-)73*74)'-%0'32')62 8,)67,%:)6)+-78)6)(
'32')62%&3988,)463<-1-8=3*8,)%-67,3;.)87838,)3-0-2*6%7869'896)%2(8,)438)28-%0 *36%'6%7,8,%8'390(6)0)%7)83<-''328%1-2%287*6318,)3-0-2*6%7869'896)-2838,) ;)80%2(72 8,)61=(6344)(786)%1)67-2838,)6)7)6:)2 -76)59-6)(83 (-7'037)%2(%2%0=>)8,)7)0-/)0=%2(()132786%8)()2:-6321)28%0-14%'87%2(83 %2%0=>)%08)62%8-:)78,%81-+,8%:3-(8,)7)-14%'87%7;)00%71-8-+%8-321)%796)78,%8 '%2&)%(348)(836)(9')8,)%-67,3;A7-14%'87328,);)80%2(7 ",)-8=,%7%'/23;0)(+)(8,)%440-'%&-0-8=3*838,) %'-*-'-67,3;-2
8,)4%78
2)')1&)6 8,)-8=%4463:)(8,),-6-2+3*%2)2:-6321)28%0 '327908%2883'32(9'86):-);3*8,)
%-67,3;",)-8='%2%2(1978(38,)
7%1)*368,)
%-67,3;;,-','%66-)78,)7%1)2))(*36)2:-6321)28%0'3140-%2') "38,))<8)288,)-8=,%7'311-88)(83,378-2+*9896)%-67,3;746-36838,)'3140)8-32 3*8,)6):-);'311-77-32)(-2)')1&)6 -8,%7:-30%8)(8,)'8 !

!#

#"

%0
8,

6%2+)3928=-723786%2+)683-140)1)28-2+6)%732%&0)&9**)6732%-6'6%*8 %'8-:-8=831-2-1->)03'%0-14%'873,2#%=2)-64368A723-7)'96*);-278-898)(83 4638)'803'%06)7-()287*63170))4(-7896&%2')7-732);)00/23;2)<%140)",)-8= 7,390(-140)1)287-1-0%60=6)%732%&0)&9**)6732%-6'6%*8%'8-:-8=3:)68,)6)7)6:)83 46):)28%(:)67)-14%'8783;-0(0-*)
",)307%,-'%%2("6978033/7*36;%6(838,)-8=A7463148'3140-%2');-8, -2'322)'8-32;-8,8,)

%'-*-'-67,3;%2(83-87%(348-323*1-8-+%8-32
1)%796)7%2('32(-8-3273*4)61-8%4463:%08,%84638)'88,)307%,-'%;)80%2(7%2(8,) 6)7-()2873*928-2+832)%',*8,)-8=(3)723846)4%6)%2 *368,)
%'-*-'
-67,3;-81978%80)%78-140)1)28-28)6-11-8-+%8-321)%796)783%:3-(-14%'8783 307%,-'%
12-26
(cont.)

!-2')6)0=

-',)00)0%'/
'
62(6);#-00-7%0-*362-%3%78%0311-77-322(6);#-00-7'3%78%0'%+3:
7#)2(=%00
!%0-*362-%!8%8)%2(7311-77-32;)2(=,%0070''%+3:
7
)0-77%36()%0-*36QLD'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH 0HOLVVD%RUGH#ZLOGOLIHFDJRY
12-26
(cont.)

E
XHIBIT 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

August 25, 2023

Sent via postal and E-mail ([email protected])

Michael E. Gates
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California

Subject: Huntington Beach Airshow – conditions to protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Dear Mr. Gates,
The California State Lands Commission (Commission) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are jointly submitting this letter to address several concerns regarding the upcoming Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow scheduled for September 29
th through October 1st, 2023.

As background, the Commission manages four million acres of sovereign tide and submerged lands, the beds of natural, navigable waterways including lakes and rivers, and school lands. The mission of the Commission is to provide the people of California with effective stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through preservation, restoration, enhancement, responsible economic development, and the promotion of public access. This stewardship of sovereign lands and natural resources is guided by the common law Public Trust Doctrine, the California Constitution, various laws, and regulations specific to the Commission, and statutory trust grants.

12-27

Page 2 of 3 ends

The Commission owns approximately 1200 acres of sovereign lands in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER). The Commission leases these lands to the CDFW for on-site management. Additionally, the Commission, along with five other state and federal agencies informally referred to as the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee, provides overall management oversight of BCER.

Portions of the BCER contain active oil operations, including operating wells and pipelines maintained by California Resources Corporation. An aircraft accident in this area could create legal liability for the parties responsible, in addition to potentially causing ecological and human health and safety damage.

CDFW manages California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. CDFW is responsible for the management of over

1.1 million acres of fish and wildlife habitat spanning over 700 properties statewide. These properties provide habitat for a rich diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species and comprise habitats from every major ecosystem in the state. CDFW is responsible for regulatory enforcement and management of related recreational, commercial, scientific, and educational uses.

During the 2021 and 2022 airshow, several incidents occurred that caused disruptions in the normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including feeding and sheltering at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Disturbances included dropping streamers in the BCER, causing potential harm to wildlife and fire risk, and repeated low flyovers, which harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over. This latter action is considered a “take” and is in violation of CCR T-14 251.1. Additionally, under Section 630 (17) of Title 14 “no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation”. The sound pollution and overhead flights pose a threat to birds and other wildlife. The BCER is a critical stopover along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16.U.S.C 703-712). These also include threatened and endangered species which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 1531-1544), and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (FGC,1.5, 2050-2115.5). A few that depend heavily on the BCER include the Western snowy plover, Light-footed Ridgway’s rail, Coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Belding’s savannah sparrow.

In order to avoid a reoccurrence of these concerns this year for the 2023 airshow, we request compliance with the following conditions:

1. No flyovers will occur over BCER.

2. No streamers or any other debris will be dropped over the BCER.

12-27
(cont.)

Page 3 of 3 ends

We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these concerns and reach a mutual concurrence on a protocol for the event that accommodates the airshow, while protecting the natural resources of BCER.

Please confirm receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

__________________ ___________________
Wendy Hall Tim Dillingham Environmental Program Manager Environmental Program Manager Special Projects Liaison Lands and Wildlife, South Coast Region California State Lands Commission California Department of Fish & Wildlife

cc:

Michael E. Gates, Attorney, City of Huntington Beach
Al Zelinka, Manager, City of Huntington Beach
Ashley Wysocki, Deputy Director, Community & Library Services, City of Huntington Beach
Kevin Elliott, CEO, Code Four, Airshow, LLC
Gregory McDonald, Long Beach Front Line Manager, Federal Aviation Administration
Lucinda Calvo, Attorney IV, CA State Lands Commission

12-27
(cont.)
~
DocuSigned by:
-r.~ D.t\,i~
18197 A48BF3B4B6 ...

E
XHIBIT 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

February 20, 2024
File ref: Lease 6616
Sent via postal and E-Mail ([email protected])

Mr. Eric G. Parra
Interim City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648

Mr. Kevin Elliott
Chief Executive Officer
Code Four
5252 Bolsa Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

SUBJECT: Required Application for Comm ission Authorization for the Operation and Maintenance of Huntington Beach Pier and Pacific Ocean AND Conditions to Protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Dear Mr. Parra and Mr. Elliott:

In 2023, the State Lands Commission (Commission) sent two letters to the city of Huntington Beach (City) and the event operator, Code Four prior to last year’s Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow expressing concerns which were subsequently not addressed by either the City or Code Four. The letters are attached. These issues remain unresolved, and the Commission requests coordination with the City and Code Four to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution on these matters and to achieve a satisfactory approach for the conduct of future Pacific Airshows. Commission staff is aware of the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study the City has issued for an Environmental Impact Report 12-28
City of Huntington Beach

Page 2 ends

for the Airshow, and staff will send a separate CEQA comment letter as part of the CEQA process.

Required Application for Commission Authorization for the Operation and Maintenance of Huntington Beach Pier and Sovereign Land in the Pacific Ocean:

In 2023, the City permitted Code Four for an event known as the Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow that occurred in and around the Pacific Ocean, near and on the Huntington Beach Pier. This is to advise you that the activity constituted an unauthorized use of State land, under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Commission), well outside of the City’s current lease rights.

As a reminder, the Commission authorized Lease PRC 6616, a General Lease – Public Agency Use, to the City for the operation and maintenance of an existing public municipal pier (Huntington Beach Pier or Pier) and related concessions. That lease was authorized for a term of 25 years, beginning June 21, 2018.

Based on the information available, the 2023 event occurred for three days, from September 29th through October 1st, with airshow flights between 10:30 am to 4:30 pm, and a festival near the Huntington Beach Pier on all three days until 8:00 pm. Additionally, staff understands that the public Pier was closed to the general public on all three days of the event and that the event operator allowed access to the Pier through the purchase of a ticket sold by a private vendor. While staff were informed by the City that public access to the pier would still be available during the event, photographs of the pier during the event do not indicate that public access was provided. In addition, the event required the temporary placement of 16 large white buoys along a 12,000-foot line 500 feet offshore, as well as other buoys marking a “sterile aerobatic box” area, within the Commission’s jurisdiction. This degree of restriction on public access and recreation along the beach and in the ocean, where boating was also restricted during the event, is not authorized by the City’s lease. The lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark remain ungranted sovereign lands under the management of the Commission.

Page 3 ends

waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, and any other recognized Public Trust uses. Lessee also agrees that any proposed construction activities and subsequent use of the Lease Premises shall not unreasonably interfere with or limit Public Trust rights and shall do so only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety during construction activities authorized by Lessor, or when imminent threats to public health and safety are present.”
The closure of the Pier to the general public requires Commission authorization. An application for Commission authorization is urgently required to avoid continued violations of the lease and unauthorized use for future proposed events.

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. Please note that applications can take a minimum of six months to process and schedule for consideration. We encourage the City to complete and submit an application as soon as possible.

The Online Application will require the City to provide the following (at a minimum):
x Copies of all currently approved or in process permits for the event with the City of Huntington Beach, United States Coast Guard, California Coastal Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. x A description of the closure, impacts, and timeline of the event. x An Approximate Expense Deposit for application review and processing. x Photos or diagrams showing where the closure of the pier begins.

Required Application for Lease from Event Operator, Code Four:

Airshow activities described above, including those occurring on and over the water (e.g., placement of buoys, etc.) and on the portions of the Pier that stand on land waterward of the ordinary high-water mark, also require Code Four to obtain Commission authorization.

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. Please note that applications can take a minimum of six months to process and schedule for consideration. We encourage you to complete and submit an application as soon as possible. The Online Application will require you to provide the following (as a minimum):
12-28
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 4 ends

x Copies of all currently approved or in process permits with the City of Huntington Beach, United States Coast Guard, California Coastal Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. x A drawing of the existing activity area, including all dimensions and proposed improvements.
x Specific location information on placement of marker buoys. x Specific location information on placement of temporary airstrips/helipads and any other potential encroachments and activities waterward of, or adjacent to the ordinary high-water mark.
x An Approximate Expense Deposit for application review and processing.

If you fail to apply to the Commission for a lease, as codified in California Public Resources Code sections 6224.3 and following, trespassing structures (including but not limited to buoys) may be subject to administrative enforcement. After an administrative enforcement action, the Commission may impose penalties of up to $1,000 per day until a lease is obtained or the structures are removed.

Conditions to Protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve:

The Commission owns approximately 1200 acres of sovereign lands in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER). The Commission leases these lands to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for on-site management.

Additionally, the Commission, along with five other state and federal agencies informally referred to as the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee, provides overall management oversight of BCER.

CDFW is responsible for the daily on-site management of the BCER, which provides habitat for a rich diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species, including many listed and special status species. The department is also responsible for regulatory enforcement and management of related recreational, commercial, scientific, and educational uses.

During the 2023 airshow, repeated low flyovers by the airshow jets caused disruptions in the normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including 12-28
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 5 ends

feeding and sheltering at BCER. These repeated low flyovers harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over.

This action is considered a “take” and is in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 251.1. Additionally, under sections 550, 630 (18), and 632 (121), (122) of title 14, no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation. The sound pollution and overhead flights pose a threat to birds and other wildlife. The BCER is a critical stopover along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16.U.S.C §§ 703-712). These also include threatened and endangered species which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C §§ 1531-1544), and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (Fish & G. Code, Ch. 1.5, §§ 2050-2115.5). A few that depend heavily on the BCER include the Western snowy plover, Light- footed Ridgway’s rail, Coastal California gnatcatcher, and the Belding’s savannah sparrow.

We request your cooperation and compliance in these matters and urge the City to contact the Commission to:
1) As described above, submit a lease application immediately or contact our office for a meeting to discuss. If you have any questions, please contact either Ken Foster at (916) 574-2555 or by email at [email protected] or Kelly Connor at (916) 574-0343 or by email at [email protected].
2) Impose conditions on approvals fo r the 2024 Airshow and future events which disallow any flights directly over the BCER. If you have any questions, please contact Wendy Hall at (916)-574-0994 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brian Bugsch
Chief, Land Management Division
cc: see next page
Sincerely,
Brian Bugsch
Chief
, Land Management
12-28
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 6 ends

cc: Michael Gates, City Attorney, City of Huntington Beach Seth Blackmon, CLSC Legal Division
Warren Crunk, CSLC Legal Division
Lucinda Calvo, CSLC Legal Division
Ken Foster, CSLC Land Management Division
Kelly Connor, CSLC La nd Management Division
Wendy Hall, CSLC Executive Division

Attachments

12-28
(cont.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

August 10, 2023
File ref: Lease 6616
Sent via postal and E-Mail ([email protected])

Michael E. Gates
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648

SUBJECT: Required Application for an Amendment of Lease PRC 6616, a General Lease – Public Agency Use for the Operation and Maintenance of Huntington Beach Pier

Dear Mr. Gates:

Our records indicate that that the City has permitted an operator for an event known as the Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow that will occur in and around the Pacific Ocean, near and on the Huntington Beach Pier. This is to advise you that the proposed activity constitutes an unauthorized use of State land, under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Commission), well outside of the City’s current lease rights.

As a reminder, the Commission authorized Lease PRC 6616, a General Lease – Public Agency Use, to the City of Huntington Beach (City) for the operation and maintenance of an existing public municipal pier (Huntington Beach Pier or Pier) and related concessions. That lease was authorized for a term of 25 years, beginning June 21, 2018. Staff has become aware that a proposed event, the Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow, will utilize the Pier.

Based on the information available, the proposed event will occur for three days, from September 29
th through October 1st, will have airshow flights

12-29
City of Huntington Beach

Page 2 ends

between 10:30 am to 4:30 pm, and a festival near the Huntington Beach Pier on all three days until 8:00 pm. Additionally, staff understands that the public Pier will be closed to the general public on all three days of the event and that the event operator will only allow access to the Pier through the purchase of a ticket sold by a private vendor. The event requires temporary placement of 16 large white buoys along a 12,000-foot line 500 feet offshore, as well as other buoys marking a “sterile aerobatic box” area, within the Commission’s jurisdiction. This degree of restriction on public access and recreation along the beach and in the ocean, where boating will also be restricted, during the event is not authorized by the City’s lease. The lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark remain ungranted sovereign lands under the management of the Commission.

As a reminder, the City’s lease acknowledges that the Premises are subject to the Public Trust and are available to members of the public. Per Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the lease:
“Lessee acknowledges that the Lease Premises are subject to the Public Trust and are presently available to members of the public for recreation, waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, and any other recognized Public Trust uses. Lessee also agrees that any proposed construction activities and subsequent use of the Lease Premises shall not unreasonably interfere with or limit Public Trust rights and shall do so only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety during construction activities authorized by Lessor, or when imminent threats to public health and safety are present.”
The closure of the Pier to the general public requires Commission authorization through the form of an amendment to the lease. An application for a lease amendment is urgently required for the proposed event.

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. We encourage the City to complete and submit an application as soon as possible. The Online Application will require the City to provide the following (at a minimum):
x Copies of all currently approved or in process permits for the event with the City of Huntington Beach, United States Coast Guard, California Coastal Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. x A description of the closure, impacts, and timeline of the event. x Photos or diagrams showing where the closure of the pier begins.

12-29
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 2 ends

We request your cooperation in this matter and urge the City to submit a lease application immediately or contact our office for a meeting to discuss. If you have any questions, please contact either Ken Foster at (916) 574-2555 or by email at [email protected] or Kelly Connor at (916) 574-0343 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Seth Blackmon
Chief Counsel, Legal Division

cc: Al Zelinka, City Manager, City of Huntington Beach
Warren Crunk, CSLC Legal Division
Lucinda Calvo, CSLC Legal Division
Ken Foster, CSLC Land Management Division
Kelly Connor, CSLC La nd Management Division

12-29
(cont.)
I.DocuSigned by:

L'::18~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

August 10, 2023

Sent via postal and E-Mail ([email protected])

Pacific Airshow, LLC
5252 Bolsa Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

SUBJECT: State Lands Lease Required fo r the Proposed Pacific Airshow in the Pacific Ocean, Huntington Beach, Orange County

Dear Pacific Airshow, LLC:

Our records indicate that you are the planned operator of the Huntington Beach Pacific Airshow that will occur in and along the Pacific Ocean, near and on the Huntington Beach Pier. This is to advise you that the proposed activity will occupy State land under the jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission (Commission).

As general background, the Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub. Resources Code §§ 6009, 6009.1, 6301, and 6306). All tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

The State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit

12-30
Pacific Airshow, LLC

Page 2 ends

of all people of the State for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways, the State's sovereign fee ownership extends landward to the mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court decision. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections
Additionally, please be advised that the Pacific Ocean is subject to the Public Right of Navigation. This right provides that the public may navigate and exercise the incidents of navigation in a lawful manner. Such uses may include, but are not limited to, boating, fishing, hunting, swimming, bathing, standing, wading along the waterfront, anchoring, picnicking, bird watching, and nature study (People ex rel. Baker v. Mack (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 1040). Events and activities are not allowed to restrict or impede the navigation and recreational rights of the public except under limited circumstances, and only with the advance approval and authorization of the Commission.

Based on the information available, staff understands that the proposed event will occur for three days, from September 29th through October 1st, will have airshow flights between 10:30 am to 4:30 pm, and festival near the Huntington Beach Pier on all three days until 8:00 pm. Additionally, staff understands that the public Huntington Beach Pier will be closed to the public on all three days of the event. There will also be restricted public recreational access along the beach and in the ocean during the event, and boating in the area will be restricted. Moreover, the event requires temporary placement of 16 large white buoys along a 12,000-foot line 500 feet offshore, as well as other buoys marking a “sterile aerobatic box” area, within the Commission’s jurisdiction. You are therefore required to obtain a lease from the Commission for the use of State land.

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. We encourage you to complete and submit an application as soon as possible. The Online Application will require you to provide the following (as a minimum):
x Copies of all currently approved or in process permits with the City of Huntington Beach, United States Coast Guard, California Coastal Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. x A drawing of the existing activity area, including all dimensions and proposed improvements.

12-30
(cont.)
Pacific Airshow, LLC

Page 2 ends

If you fail to apply to the Commission fo r a lease, as codified in California Public Resources Code sections 6224.3 and following, trespassing structures may be subject to administrative enforcement. After an administrative enforcement action, the Commission may impose penalties of up to $1,000 per day until a lease is obtained or the structures are removed.

We request your cooperation in this matter and urge you to submit a lease application immediately or contact our office for a meeting to discuss. If you have any questions, please contact either Ken Foster at (916) 574-2555 or by email at [email protected] or Kelly Connor at (916) 574-0343 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Seth Blackmon
Chief Counsel, Legal Division

cc: Warren Crunk, Legal Division
Lucinda Calvo, Legal Division
Ken Foster, Land Management Division
Kelly Connor, Land Management Division

12-30
(cont.)
I.DocuSigned by:

L'::18~

E
XHIBIT 4

12-31

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
301 E. Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
February 21, 2024
Mr. Michael Gates
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mr. Eric G. Parra
Interim City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mr. Kevin Elliott
Chief Executive Officer
Code Four
5252 Balsa Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

GAVI N NEWSOM , G OVERNOR
Re: October 2023 Pacific Air Show's Privatization of Public Land and Waters in Huntington Beach Without a Requisite Coastal Development Permit
Dear Addressees:

This letter is written to you regarding the October 2023 Pacific Air Show ("the air show"), which is annually authorized by the City of Huntington Beach ("the City") and organized by Code Four.

Coastal Commission ("Commission") staff has confirmed that at 2023' s air show, and others in previous years, sizeable private bleacher seating was constructed along the shoreline between the Huntington Beach Pier southward to approximately Beach Boulevard, members of the public were prohibited from crossing the shoreline and accessing state tidelands seaward of the bleacher seating, and public access to the entirety of the Huntington Beach pier was blocked for the exclusive private use of ticket purchasers throughout the duration of the event.1 Commission staff has also confirmed that significant fees were charged for vehicular and RV access to the City's beach parking lots leading up to and during the airshow. 2
Prior to and after the 2023 air show, Commission staff sent several emails and letters to representatives from the City's Department of Community and Library Services on July 26, 2023, August 7, 2023, and October 13, 2023, raising Commission staffs questions and potential concerns regarding unpermitted privatization of public land at the 2023 air show, which will be discussed in further detail below, and our desire to meet with the City to discuss. Unfortunately, Commission staff never received a substantive response from the City addressing the concerns or demonstrating a willingness to meet and discuss further.
1 Please see Exhibit 1 for reference.
2 Please see Exhibit 2 for reference.
12-31
(cont.)

Page 2 of 12 ends

Please know that Commission staff understands the popularity of this annual event within the Huntington Beach and greater Orange County communities, as well as the economic benefits that such events can produce for local businesses and coastal cities with limited financial resources.

Given that context, Commission staff would like to work with the City to appropriately authorize the event and address Commission staffs concerns regarding the 2023 and potential future air show's privatization of public land on Huntington City Beach, state tidelands at and below the mean high tide line ("MHTL"), and the Huntington Beach Pier without a requisite coastal development permit ("CDP"). As such, each concern will be discussed separately in further detail below.

Partial Closure of State Tidelands and State Waters
Commission staff has confirmed that during the October 2023 Airshow: (1) buoys were placed in the ocean south of the Huntington Beach pier to prevent the public from entering and accessing state waters; and (2) fencing and air show personnel were stationed near the shoreline adjacent to the private bleacher seating to prevent the public from accessing adjacent state tidelands.

Commission staff understands that the City has permitting authority over the area of the beach landward of the MHTL. However, the City's Coastal Element, which is part of its certified LCP, provides that the City's LCP policies only apply to the geographic portion of the City that falls within the coastal zone. As such, state tidelands and portions of the Huntington Beach Pier at and below the MHTL remain under the Commission's retained permit jurisdiction. See Section 245.06.B.l of the City's LCP Implementation Plan ("IP") 3 and Coastal Act Section 30519(b)4.

Furthermore, Section 245.06 of the City's Municipal Code states:

The Coastal Commission's original permit jurisdiction includes all tidelands, submerged lands, or public trust lands whether filled or unfilled unless the Coastal Commission has delegated original permit jurisdiction to the City for areas potentially subject to the public trust but which are determined by the Coastal Commission to be filled, developed, and committed to urban use pursuant to Section 30613 of the Coastal Act. Development located in the Coastal Commission's original permit jurisdiction requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the Coastal Commission in accordance with the procedure as specified by the California Coastal Act. [ emphasis added] In addition, under well-settled state law, the State of California (acting by and through the California State Lands Commission ("SLC")) owns the tidelands and submerged lands seaward of the MHTL, and these tidelands are held in public trust for the public. Article X, Section 4 of the California State Constitution states:
3 LCP IP Section 245.06.Bl states: Coastal Permit Issued by the Coastal Commission. Developments on tidelands, submerged lands, or navigable waterways require a permit issued by the California Coastal Commission in accordance with the procedure as specified by the California Coastal Act. 4 Coastal Act Section 305 l 9(b) states: Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone, nor shall it apply to any development proposed or undertaken within ports covered by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 30700) or within any state university or college within the coastal zone; however, this section shall apply to any development proposed or undertaken by a port or harbor district or authority on lands or waters granted by the Legislature to a local government whose certified local coastal program includes the specific development plans for such district or authority.
12-31
(cont.)

Page 3 of 12 ends

No individual, partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage of tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable water in this state shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required/or public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct free navigation of such waters; the Legislature shall enact such as will give the most liberal construction of this provision so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof. [ emphasis added]
Although components of the October 2023 air show within the City's permit jurisdiction may qualify as a temporary event per the City's certified LCP and, thus, may be exempt from CDP requirements, this exemption does not grant the City and/or Code Four the authority to prohibit public access to state tidelands at and below the MHTL at any portion of Huntington City Beach without proper authorization from the Commission.

Partial Closure of Huntington City Beach and Construction of Private Bleacher Seating As stated above, Commission staff has confirmed that sizeable private bleacher seating was constructed along the shoreline between the Huntington Beach Pier southward to approximately Beach Boulevard. Commission staff has also confirmed that individual ticket prices listed on the air show's website to access Huntington City Beach between the pier and approximately Beach Boulevard during the event varied between $25 and $299, and group seating prices between $1,990 and $4,950 depending on the specific type of seating and accommodations. 5 The City's certified LCP generally allows temporary events without a CDP if they meet certain criteria per Section 245.08.H of the City's LCP, Implementation Plan ("IP"), and zoning code.

However, the City's Downtown Specific Plan ("DSP"), which is also part of the City's LCP IP, and supersedes the City's zoning codes in specific designated areas of Huntington Beach per the City's Coastal Element, requires a CDP for any beach closure in the downtown area. Specifically, the City's DSP Section 3.3.7.15 includes the following requirement regarding the beach area:

Closure to public use of any portion of the beach inland of the mean high tide line is not encouraged and requires a coastal development permit which must maintain the public's right to gain access to State tidelands. Measures that limit public use of the beach shall be limited to those necessary to address documented public safety events that cause a risk or hazard to the general public and shall be the minimum necessary to address the potential risk or hazard to the general public. The need for continuation of safety measures that limit public access shall be reassessed on a periodic basis to assure maximum public access is provided. Limited closure for beach maintenance may be allowable pursuant to a coastal development permit. [ emphasis added]
Commission staff notes that Section 245.08 of the City's Municipal Code exempts certain temporary events from CDP requirements. Temporary events include "exclusive use of a sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets or parking area which is otherwise open and available for general public use." "Exclusive use" is defined as:
5 Please see Exhibit 2 for reference.
12-31
(cont.)

Page 4 of 12 ends

A use that precludes use in the area of the event for public recreation, beach access or access to coastal waters other than for or through the event itself. Sandy beach area includes publicly owned and privately owned sandy areas fronting on coastal waters, regardless of the existence of potential prescriptive rights or a public trust interest. Coastal resources include, but are not limited to, public access opportunities, visitor and creational facilities, water-oriented activities[.]
As stated above, construction of the private bleacher seating on Huntington City Beach and limiting access to this portion of the beach for ticket purchasers occurred without a CDP in violation of the public access protection policies set forth in the City's DSP Section 3 .3. 7 .15. Again, it is Commission staffs position that DSP Section 3 .3. 7 .15 establishes separate and specific requirements for the downtown beach area that supersede other temporary events exemptions that may otherwise be authorized in this jurisdiction. Commission staff also understands the City may be concerned that the public was excluded from these portions of state tidelands and state waters due to safety risks associated with the air show, but despite these concerns, such measures that restrict access to state waters and tidelands require Commission authorization.

Complete Closme of Huntington Beach Pier
Commission staff has also confirmed that the entirety of the public municipal Huntington Beach pier ("the pier") was closed off with fencing and regulated by air show personnel for the exclusive use of air show ticket purchasers leading up to and during the event. Tickets to access the pier during the air show were listed on the event's website for $50 to $75 per day.6 As referenced above, Section 245.06.B of the City's LCP IP and Section 30519(b) of the Coastal Act provide that the Commission retains permit issuing authority over development undertaken on state tidelands, which includes portions of the pier at and seaward of this designation. In addition, the City's Lease No.

PRC 6616.1 ("the lease") with the SLC imposes certain Public Trust and contractual obligations on the City regarding public access to the pier, commercialization of the pier, and pier closures. The lease premises includes all portions of the pier from Boundary Line Agreement 84 and the 1955 MHTL designation seaward. 7
Special Provision 3 of the lease provides that:

Lessee (the City) acknowledges that the Lease Premises are subject to the Public Trust and are presently available to members of the public for recreation, waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, and any other recognized Public Trust uses. Lessee also agrees that any proposed construction activities and subsequent use of the Lease Premises shall not unreasonably interfere with or limit Public Trust rights and shall do so only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety during construction activities authorized by Lessor, or when imminent threats to public health and safety are present. [ emphasis added]
General Provision 5(g) provides that "use of the Lease Premises for commercial purposes; conducting a business, whether for profit or otherwise; and any subleasing, rental, or any transaction 6 Please see Exhibit 3 for reference.
7 Please see Exhibit 4 for reference.
12-31
(cont.)

Page 5 of 12 ends

whereby Lessee directly or indirectly receives compensation from a third party in exchange for use of the Lease Premises shall constitute an immediate Default of this lease with no cure period." General Provision 6(a)(3) provides that "Lessor (SLC) expressly reserves to the public an easement for convenient access across the Lease Premises and a right of reasonable passage across and along any right-of-way granted by this Lease[.]"
General Provision 6(e) provides that "Lessee (the City) shall have the right to exclude persons from the Lease Premises only when their presence or activity constitutes a material interference with the Lessee's use and enjoyment of the Lease Premises."
Closure of the pier for the private benefit of air show ticket purchasers throughout the duration of the event unreasonably interferes with and limits public trust rights per Special Provision 3 of the lease. Further, this closure was clearly not intended to protect public health and safety during construction related activities per General Provision 6(a)(3), nor did the public's presence on the pier during the air show constitute a material interference with the City's use and enjoyment of the lease premises per General Provision 6( e ).

These same concerns regarding the October 2023 air show's unauthorized use of the pier were stated in a letter from SLC to City Attorney Mr. Michael Gates on August 10, 2023. In that letter, SLC requested that the City apply for a lease amendment to utilize the pier in such a private commercial manner during the airshow. Unfortunately, the City never responded to SLC's letter and did not apply for a requisite lease amendment. As such, Commission staff has communicated with SLC, and both agencies have determined that the October 2023 air show's unpermitted closure and privatization of the pier constitutes a breach of the above-mentioned conditions of the lease.

Finally, as stated above, the October 2023 airshow prohibited public access to the entirety of the pier throughout the duration of the event, including portions of the pier at and beyond the MHTL, which falls under the Commission's retained jurisdiction. This closure did not receive the necessary authorization from the Commission, and, thus, constitutes a violation of the public access protection policies of the Coastal Act.

Increase in City Beach RV Parking Lot Rates
As stated above, Commission staff has confirmed that RV camping spots in City beach parking lots were sold for $4,500 to camp between Thursday, September 28 and Monday, October 2, 2023. This adjustment was a 1,630% to 1,025% increase in RV camping spot rates as the City normally only charges between $65 and $100 per night depending on the reservation. 8 Please note that the City's DSP Section 3.3.7.15 provides:

Public beaches and parks shall maintain lower-cost user fees and parking fees, and maximize hours of use to the extent feasible, in order to maximize public access and recreation opportunities. Limitations on time of use or increases in user fees or parking fees shall be subject to coastal development permit requirements in accordance with Chapter 245 of the HBZSO.
8 Please see Exhibit 5 for reference.
12-31
(cont.)

Page 6 of 12 ends

The implementation of restrictions on public parking along public streets with the potential to impede or restrict public access to beaches, trails or park/ands, (including, but not limited to, the posting of "no parking" signs, red curbing, physical barriers and preferential parking programs) shall be prohibited except where such restrictions are needed to protect public safety and where no other feasible alternative exists to provide public safety.

Public recreation and access opportunities at public beaches and parks shall be protected, and where feasible, enhanced as an important coastal resource ... All beach amenities available to the general public on the City's public beaches (including those owned and operated by the City and the State) shall be available to all members of the public on an equal basis. [ emphasis added]
As such, the City's authorization of the substantial increase in RV camping rates during and throughout the air show discussed above contradicts Section 3 .3. 7 .15 of the City's DSP, which, in part, requires lower-cost parking fees at the City's public beaches. Again, please note that the City's DSP supersedes the City's IP or zoning code for development conducted within the Huntington Beach downtown area per the City's Coastal Element, which includes the City beach parking lots.

Further, it is assured that many, if not most, of the public is not able to afford such rate increases to access this popular beach amenity, which is supported and maintained by taxpayer dollars . .Potential Changes to Flight Patterns to Avoid Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Through this letter Commission staff would also like to address significant environmental concerns related to flight paths during the air show. Commission staff received a copy of the June 29, 2023, letter from Carstens, Black & Minteer, LLP representing the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, to the City which raises concerns regarding threats to the wildlife and habitat of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve stemming from the airshow. Commission staff has also received a copy of City Attorney Mr. Michael Oates's July 11, 2023, response to that letter.

The City's IP states that the Director of Community Development, or the City Council through direction to the director of Community Development, may determine that a temporary event shall be subject to CDP review, even if the criteria set forth in Section 3 are not met, if the Director or City Council determines that unique or changing circumstances exist relative to a particular temporary event that have the potential for significant adverse impacts on coastal resources. Such circumstances include situations where the event and its associated activities or access requirements will either directly or indirectly impact environmentally sensitive habitat areas, rare or endangered species, significant scenic resources, or other coastal resources as described in Section 2. As stated in the Bolsa Chica Land Trust's letter, as well as in an August 10, 2023 letter emailed to the City, Code Four, and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") from SLC and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), and in another email sent to the City and Code Four from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), airshows have the potential for significant adverse impacts on local coastal resources, including but not limited to, low aircraft passing over the wetlands and the startling noise of jets causing flushing ofrare and endangered species of birds from the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Furthermore, the proximity of the airshow jets to neighboring oil infrastructure and potential for a crash could release contaminants from the oil infrastructure into the wetlands. As such, this potential for significant adverse impacts to local coastal resources triggers the City to review the airshow per the City's IP, and to consider 12-31
(cont.)

Page 7 of 12 ends

both alternative flight routes and altitude requirements, regardless of whether the airshow qualifies as a discretionary or ministerial project per the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

We ask that the City work with SLC and CDFW and other relevant regulatory agencies to review alternative flight routes and altitude requirements in order to best protect wildlife and wildlife habitat for protected species at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve.

Request for Adclitional Information
Through this letter, to better understand the operational roles of the parties involved, and to help explore options for resolution, Commission staff is also requesting copies of both the City's operating agreement with Code Four for the air show, and the fully executed settlement agreement (not an executive summary) between both parties reached in Pacific Airshow, LLC v. City of Huntington Beach. It appears that these would be public documents available for disclosure under the California Public Records Act and Commission staff expects they will be released to help us determine a mutually desirable outcome.

Resolution
Commission staff would like to reiterate that it is not the intent of this letter, or any subsequent meetings between the City, Commission staff, and other involved parties to prohibit future air shows from taking place in Huntington Beach. However, the October 2023 air show's widespread unpermitted privatization of public land discussed in this letter is not compliant with the City's certified LCP, violates public access protection policies of the Coastal Act, and breaches contractual obligations of the City's lease with SLC. As such, to avoid future activities that might expose the City and Code Four to formal enforcement action(s), Commission staff is requesting a meeting with all parties involved to ensure that future air shows may continue operating in a manner compliant with all relevant statutory and contractual requirements. Please contact me via email at [email protected] by March 5, 2024, to schedule a meeting and discuss.

Sincerely,
Spenser Sayre, Esq.

South Coast District Enforcement
Cc: Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, CCC
Karl Schwing, Deputy Director, CCC
Lisa Haage, Chief of Enforcement, CCC
Andrew Willis, Enforcement Counsel, CCC
Meg Vaughn, Coastal Program Analyst, CCC
Wendy Hall, Environmental Program Manager, California State Lands Commission Kelly Connor, Public Land Management Specialist III, California State Lands Commission
Lucinda Calvo, Senior Attorney, California State Lands Commission 12-31
(cont.)

Page 8 of 12 ends

EXHIBIT 1
12-31
(cont.)

Page 9 of 12 ends

EXHIBIT 2
12-31
(cont.)

Page 10 of 12 ends

EXIIlBIT3
12-31
(cont.)

NOSC'ALE
'

LAND DESCRIPTION PLAT
PRC 6616.1.CITYOF

HUNTINGTON BEACII

ORANGE COUNTY

Page 11 of 12 ends

EXHIBIT4

PACIFIC OCEAN

EXHIBIT A

Page 2 ends

CALIFORNIA ST ATE

LANDS COMMISSION
RPr 06/14/2018
12-31
(cont.)
Huntington Beach

RV CAMPGROUND

STANDARD RATE
&mday-Thurldcry: $75 per night
Fndoy-Sorurdoy: SlOOptrnigh1
Holidoy,•: Sl0Clpernigh1

Page 12 of 12 ends

EXHIBITS

DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE
Senk,r (62+J / Di,ablff"'
SI0 ditcoun1per nJgh1
' Holid0)1 IMIIICM i.dtm l holldoy9, !ht wuk l ♦ oding 1,p ro Thonbgf•ing ond "1, ..... . bt~ Chr'orfmcu ond NtwY♦ or't Day.
'M,u1 .t.ow 10 fotS-tr,ioto~/o, "and pio(on:l ror tx.~ d'lt(ounr, f~giblt ~l .. trtd com per mu .. be rht occuponl of TM Ut In n.t ro *•"'- ..,_ diKOUn l

ADDITIONAL FEES
s; .. lockl .. : SIOpe,nlfhl'
• R.Mrw<1tion cha,_.. IH: S 10
Huntington Beach RV Campground (Day after Labor Day • May 31) All campground lnformadon and ruervations can be found
at www.hbrv.org.
-- -
'4UNTINGTON BEACH RV CAMPGROUND RATES --
IS75 00 per nigh I (Sunoay. Thursday)
Camper vehlCle or auto whh trailer 1s100 00 per night (Friday - Saturday & ;Holidays· I
&:nlors (62+) and campers with Disabled ;S6s.oo per night (Sunday - Thursday) Person placard S90.00 per night (Fnday - Saturday &
Hollctays-I --
-
-
-Extra veh 1cIe fee ~ 5.00 per calendar day
r:----
Reservation cancellation Fee (Greater S2500 lhan 2-days pnor to arr1vaI date) Reservauon cancellation Fee (2 or less First Nlghrs Daly Rate aays prior to arrival date) -Change Fee S10.00
-
_J_s10 oo per nIgn1 She Lock Fee
- --
'Holiday Rates: Thanksgiving Week (Sunday prececting Thani<Sglvlng tnrough Saturday night rollowing Thanksgiving), Cnristmas Week (day preceding Cnrlstmas lhrough New Yeafs Eve), Day preceding Veterans Day (observed), Manin Luther King Jr. Day Presidents' Day, and Memona1 Day.

Phone: (714) 536-5281 (Option 2)
Email: ncrvcampground@surfclty-nb org
&ook Now

E
XHIBIT 5

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900
March 4, 2024
File Ref: SCH # 2024020006
Connor Hyland
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
[email protected]

Subject: Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project, Orange County

Dear Connor Hyland,
The California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach (Project or Airshow), which is being prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (City). The City, as the public agency that must issue a permit for the Project through their Specific Event Permit Process, is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). Pacific Airshow LLC is applying for the permit and is proposing to carry out the Project. The Commission is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect State sovereign land and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses.

Additionally, because the Project involves work on State sovereign land, the Commission will act as a responsible agency. Commission staff requests that the City consult with us on preparation of the DEIR as required by CEQA section 21153, subdivision (a) and the State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2).

Staff contacted the City and event operator by letter in August 2023 (see attached 2023 letter) regarding the requirement for a Commission lease or lease amendment for the use of sovereign lands for the 2023 Airshow, as well as concerns regarding Airshow impacts on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve 12-32
Connor Hyland Pg. 2 March 4, 2024

(BCER), which is owned and managed by the Commission. In February 2024, staff again sent letters to the City and event operator (see attached 2024 letter).

As previously stated by letter to the City, staff requested coordination with the City and operator to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution on these matters and to achieve a satisfactory approach for the conduct of future Pacific Airshows. As part of the Commission’s effort to work with the City, staff offers these comments on the NOP and Initial Study (IS).

Commission Jurisdiction and Public Trust Lands
The Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways.

The Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 6009, subd. (c); 6009.1; 6301; 6306). All tidelands and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

As general background, the State of California acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands and submerged lands and beds of navigable lakes and waterways upon its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all people of the state for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include but are not limited to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. On tidal waterways, the State's sovereign fee ownership extends landward to the mean high tide line, except for areas of fill or artificial accretion or where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. On navigable non-tidal waterways, including lakes, the State holds fee ownership of the bed of the waterway landward to the ordinary low-water mark and a Public Trust easement landward to the ordinary high-water mark, except where the boundary has been fixed by agreement or a court. Such boundaries may not be readily apparent from present day site inspections.

After review of the information contained in the NOP, there are several components of the Project that would require Commission authorization. The Commission authorized Lease PRC 6616, a General Lease – Public Agency Use, to the City for the operation and maintenance of an existing municipal pier (Huntington Beach Pier or Pier) and related concessions. That lease was authorized for a term of 25 years, beginning June 21, 2018. Staff is aware that the proposed Project will utilize the Pier. The City’s lease acknowledges that the Lease Premises, including the Pier, are subject to the Public Trust and are available to members of the public. If the City proposes to close a portion of the pier within the Lease Premises to the general public, the City must obtain 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 3 March 4, 2024

Commission authorization through the form of an amendment to the existing lease or issuance of a new lease.

Another component of the proposed Project includes the placement of 16 large white buoys along a 12,000-foot line to be located 500 and 1,500 feet offshore, marking the Airshow Performance Area. This area would restrict public access and water-dependent recreation, including boating, during the event; such a restriction is not authorized by the City’s lease. The lands waterward of the ordinary high-water mark remain ungranted sovereign lands under the management of the Commission. The placement of the buoys would constitute an additional encroachment on these sovereign lands, and in the absence of Commission authorization would constitute a trespass subject to the Commission’s enforcement authority (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 6216.1, 6224.3 et seq., 6301, 6303.1; 2 CCR § 3002). Therefore, the placement of the buoys in the ocean will require Commission authorization.

The proposed Project also includes a helicopter landing/runway display on a temporary helipad to be generally located within an open area directly in front of the Main Hospitality Area during the hours of the airshow. However, based on the current Project information, the proposed runway may encroach waterward of the ordinary high-water mark and within sovereign land subject to the Commission’s leasing jurisdiction. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed runway may temporarily encroach on sovereign land and require Commission authorization. Please provide staff with more detailed Project plans that show the specific proposed location of the landing/runway.

Therefore, the proposed Project will require an application for an amendment of the existing lease or a new lease. Information on the Commission’s leasing process can be found online at www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/, the online application can be found at www.oscar.slc.ca.gov/, and any related questions can be directed to Mr. Kelly Connor (contact information below).

In addition, the Commission owns approximately 1,200 acres of sovereign lands in the BCER located within the Project’s Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) Area.

The Commission leases these lands to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for on-site management. Additionally, the Commission, along with five other state and federal agencies informally referred to as the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee, provides overall management oversight of the BCER.

Project Description
Pacific Airshow LLC proposes the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project to meet the following objectives and needs:
12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 4 March 4, 2024

x Provide a spectacle-scale airshow in Huntington Beach that attracts attendees throughout the Southern California area and beyond. x Feature civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, air racing; and helicopter, electric vehicle, drone, and emerging aviation/mobility technology displays.
x Provide visitor-serving entertainment, services, and amenities. x Provide an event that reduces potential impacts to the surrounding sensitive habitat including the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and special-status wildlife species such as the federally endangered California least tern and western snowy plover.

From the Project Description, Commission staff understands that the Project would include the following components that have potential to impact State sovereign land and Public Trust resources:
x Practice flyovers and flight paths: Practice flyover events are proposed to begin the Monday before the start date of the Pacific Airshow event. x Airshow event activities: Aerial event activities are proposed to take place over a 3 to 5-day period. Event activities include daytime and nighttime events which start at 10:30 AM and nighttime flyovers and/or parachute jumps planned to take place during the evening hours.
x Beach Airstrip: The IS states that a helicopter landing/runway display activity (pg. 2-8) will be held on a temporary airstrip built out on the beach in front of the Main Hospitality Area (pg. 2-11).
x Pyrotechnic nightly shows: A nighttime proposed activity (pg. 2-8) that may be discharged from flyover aircraft, the Huntington Beach Pier, or an ocean barge.
x Event amenities: Event amenities, such as food trucks, wave pool, demonstrations, competitions, drones, and additional events. x Trash containment and removal: Containment and removal of trash during the event and following the breakdown of the event. x Single-use plastics: Event vendors providing services and amenities during the event will be strongly encouraged to not use plastic by the Project Sponsor (pg. 2-14).

Environmental Review
Commission staff requests that the City consider the following comments when preparing the DEIR to ensure that impacts to State sovereign land and Public Trust resources are adequately analyzed.

12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 5 March 4, 2024

General Comments

1. Project Description: The Project description (PD) provided in the IS discusses former airshow events as well as future proposed airshow events that would include an expansion of the event from 3 to up to 5 days, with later event stop times (10 PM to 11 PM), and would include many additional proposed activities (e.g., pyrotechnic shows, nighttime music festival). The IS states that the performers and types of aerial activities are likely to change each year (pg. 2-10). The Project description for future airshow events is currently broad and lacks pertinent details for evaluating environmental impacts from all the proposed Project activities. All proposed activities and their environmental impacts must be evaluated in the DEIR. In addition, the DEIR must identify and describe the most impactful combination of activities that could possibly occur (the “worst-case scenario”) and carry forward the full environmental impact analysis for that scenario.

A thorough and complete PD should be included in the DEIR to facilitate meaningful environmental review of potential impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. The PD should be as precise as possible in describing the details of all allowable activities that originate within or outside the IS’s identified Project area (e.g., flight paths from origin airports for practice and event airshow activities, types of aircraft, maximum area of impact, locations of activities within the Project area, etc.), as well as the details of the timing and length of activities. Thorough descriptions will facilitate Commission staff’s determination of the extent and locations of its leasing jurisdiction, make for a more robust analysis of the work and activities that may be performed, and minimize the potential for subsequent environmental analysis to be required.

2. Project Description – Project Area: The IS states on pg. 2-1 that “The Show Center Area and Airshow Performance Area collectively comprise of the Project Site.” However, many Project-related activities (e.g., Project-related flights) also occur within the Project’s “temporary flight restriction (TFR) airspace” defined on pg. 2-1 as the “five nautical mile (NM) ring centered on the center of the Airshow’s aerobatic box.” For purposes of the DEIR, the definition of the Project Site should be expanded to encompass the TFR area.

At a minimum, the DEIR should clearly identify a Project Study Area to include the Show Center Area, the Airshow Performance Area, and the 5 nautical mile TFR ring and fully describe and analyze all Project activities and impacts within. Staff encourages the City to work with Pacific Airshow LLC to incorporate Project design changes in the DEIR to avoid sensitive areas like the BCER and that include minimum flight altitude restrictions.

In addition, the IS does not include the locations of the various event amenities within the Project area. Staff recommends having specific locations for these event amenities described in the DEIR. 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 6 March 4, 2024

3. CEQA Document: If the City is unable to identify a worst-case scenario for Project-level EIR analysis (see comment #1, above), then staff suggests that the City consider using a programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR). A PEIR may be more appropriate than a Project EIR to provide for flexibility in evaluating various activities or components during the projected 10-year timeline for the Pacific Airshow. In addition, a PEIR may allow for future CEQA documents and subsequent environmental impact analyses to evaluate any event activities that are not currently identified.

4. Required Approvals: Staff notes that the IS omits the Commission from the list of public agencies with approval authority over the Project. In the DEIR’s Review and Approvals section, please include: 1) the Commission’s Responsible agency review of the Final EIR and adoption of an independent Mitigation Monitoring Program, and 2) Approval of a State Lands Lease(s) and/or Lease Amendment. In the DEIR’s list of public agencies whose approval is required, please include the Commission as a CEQA Responsible Agency.

5. Helipad/Temporary airstrip: The DEIR should expand upon the IS’s description of the helicopter landing/runway display (IS pgs. 2-5, 2-8, 2-10, and 2-11) and clarify that the airstrip may be used for planes as well as helicopters. A recent February 15, 2024, media event promoting the Project featured Airshow operator Kevin Elliott and the City’s Mayor each arriving at the beach on small planes. Local media covering the event reported, “For this year’s air show, event organizers will construct a temporary runway on the beach where planes will land and take off right in front of spectators.”1 In addition, the IS states on pg. 2-8 that the temporary helipad will be constructed in front of the Main Hospitality Area to provide a landing/runway area for aerial performances. The DEIR should provide a robust description of the construction of this runway or airstrip and include the estimated depth of excavation, as repeated references to this project component in the IS describe construction activities as simply “at or near-grade on the sand” (pg. 3-19).

Biological Resources

6. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and Special Status Species: BCER is home to over twenty-two special status species and is designated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency as a critical flyway for migratory birds. Pg. 2-6 of the IS states that “Preliminary Project objectives include” providing “an event that reduces potential impacts to the surrounding sensitive habitat

1 Orange County Register, “Huntington Beach air show will land planes on the beach for this year’s event” (Feb. 15, 2024)( https://www.ocregister.com/2024/02/15/huntington-beach-air- show-will-land-planes-on-the-beach-for-this-years-event/). 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 7 March 4, 2024

including the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and special-status wildlife species such as the federally endangered California least tern and western snowy plover.” However, to accomplish this objective, the DEIR must analyze the Project’s potential impacts on these sensitive habitats and formulate enforceable mitigation measures to address the CDFW on-site management team’s documented impacts on BCER that have occurred during past Airshows as stated in the August 25, 2023, joint letter from the Commission and CDFW, to the City and airshow operator, Code Four (see attached 2023 letter). While pg. 2-10 of the IS states that “many of the aircraft…seldom fly over land…”, this statement conflicts with multiple observations over multiple years, as referenced in the letters sent by Commission on August 25, 2023, and February 20, 2024, to the City and the airshow operator. These letters document incidents during the 2021, 2022, and 2023 airshows of repeated low flyovers by the airshow jets that caused disruptions in the normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including feeding and sheltering, at BCER.

These repeated low flyovers harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over. This action is considered a “take” and is in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 251.1 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife regulations 50 CFR 17.3. Additionally, under sections 550, 630 (18), and 632 (121), (122) of title 14, no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation. The sound pollution and overhead flights pose a threat to birds and other wildlife. The BCER is a critical stopover along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16.U.S.C §§ 703-712) and include threatened and endangered species which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C §§ 1531-1544), and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (Fish & G. Code, Ch. 1.5, §§ 2050-2115.5).

The DEIR should include an evaluation of noise and vibration impacts on fish, birds, and other wildlife from the event’s operations activities (practice flyovers and aerial events, pyrotechnic shows, amplified sound, etc.) within the Project radius (5-mile TFR radius centered on the airshow performance area, IS Figure 3), which includes BCER. To support the DEIR’s noise and vibrations analyses and environmental impact significance determinations, staff expects the document to also include representative flight paths for practice flyover and aerial event performances.

7. Existing and Regulatory Settings: For all land under the Commission’s jurisdiction, the DEIR must disclose and analyze all potentially significant effects on sensitive species and habitats in and around the Project Site, including special status wildlife, fish, and plants, and if appropriate, identify 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 8 March 4, 2024

feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. The City should conduct queries of the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Special Status Species Database to identify any special status plant or wildlife species that may occur in the Project area.

The DEIR should also include a discussion of early consultation with the CDFW, USFWS, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as applicable, and identify any potentially required permits identified by these agencies.

Additionally, the DEIR’s regulatory setting for Biological Resources should include discussion of CDFW regulations prohibiting the use of any “aircraft, hovercraft, or hot air balloon” in Ecological Reserves and other CDFW sites without first obtaining a CDFW Special Use Permit (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 550 (aa)). The regulatory setting should also include other relevant laws and regulations pertaining to aircraft restrictions in CDFW sites.2

8. Drones: The IS states that drone and similar small aircraft technology will be flown as part of the Project, including on pg. 2-8 (“Aircraft static, EV, drone and other urban air mobility (UAM) technology displays and aerial competitions to occur”) and pg. 2-9 (“The Applicant would conduct scheduled drone flights throughout the event days for capture of event promotional footage and documentation of event layouts in various areas”).

The DEIR should include analysis of potential impacts should drones and similar technology stray into the BCER and include mitigation measures to avoid such impacts. Mitigation could include, but not be limited to, requiring Airshow UAM operators to utilize the FAA’s B4UFly app. See CDFW Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves Added to FAA’s Drone Mobile App (https://wildlife.ca.gov/News/Archive/cdfw-wildlife-areas-and-ecological- reserves-added-to-faas-drone-mobile-app#gsc.tab=0). A recent example of drone impacts occurred on May 12, 2021, when an illegally operated drone crashed in the BCER, resulting in approximately 3,000 Elegant Terns leaving their nesting grounds and abandoning an estimated 2,000 eggs,3 resulting in a massive reproductive loss for the species, which has only four known nesting sites left on earth.4

9. Trash/Trash Removal: The DEIR shou ld include best management practices and mitigation measures to ensure trash, including streamer drops from the Pacific Airshow’s opening ceremonies, will be properly contained for the

2 Including but not limited to section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code and California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 251, 251.1.
3 See CDFW webpg., Legal and Responsible Drone Operations: Wildlife Disturbance (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Drones).
4 National Public Radio, “A Single Drone Has Harmed A Generation Of Wildlife” (June 22, 2021)(https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/1008986922/a-single-drone-has-harmed-a-generation-of- wildlife).
12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 9 March 4, 2024

duration of the event and not overflow to the surrounding beach, water, and greater coastal area, including BCER. Trash can present environmental hazards to species through exposure or ingestion and lead to degradation of habitat. Staff also strongly encourages the Project sponsor to not only “strongly encourage,” but require event vendors to avoid single-use plastics (i.e., carry-out bags, cutlery), to the extent feasible, as they are a danger to wildlife (e.g., ingestion, entanglements, etc.).

Air Quality

10. Criteria Pollutants: The IS identified a potentially significant impact to air quality, during the Pacific Airshow’s operations phase, from a net increase of criteria pollutants. However, the IS also determined that “There would be no potential for construction or construction-related ground disturbance generating net new emissions or net new increase in short-term construction employment.” (p.3-10) and “There would be no potential for construction or construction-related ground disturbance generating a considerable net increase in emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5. / No further analysis of this issue in the EIR is required.” (p. 3-11) The IS also notes that the Project would include constructing a temporary airstrip on the beach in front of the Main Hospitality Area. Commission staff expects the City to include in the DEIR emissions modeling results for both construction- and operations-related criteria pollutant emissions as well as the associated impact analyses and feasible mitigation measures.

11.Air Quality Management Plan – existing non-attainment: The IS identified a less than significant impact when evaluating conflicts with or obstructions to the South Coast Air Quality District’s (District) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The District provides criteria to evaluate a Project’s consistency, which includes “Criterion 1: Will the project result in any of the following: – An increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations…” (p. 3-9).

For those criteria pollutants where the region is already in non-attainment, the IS does not adequately discuss why a Project that creates a potentially significant impact by increasing the emission of criteria pollutants (pg. 3-11) does not also create an increase in the frequency and/or severity of the existing non-attainment violations. In addition, the IS artificially and improperly restricts new emissions to those occurring from “on-site” activities (“The competitions and art installations would not result in new emissions from on- site activities. The temporary event structures would also be similar in scale and location to previous Airshows since 2016 (except in 2020) and would not result in new emissions from on-site activities.”)(Id.) By extending the airshow festival length and adding potential activities, the proposed Project does contemplate an increase in criteria pollutant emissions over any potential 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 10 March 4, 2024

CEQA baseline. The extended airshow festival will result in increased aircraft emissions that should be carried forward and analyzed in the DEIR.

Please also consider including emissions evaluations from idling cars sitting in traffic that could contribute to air quality impacts. The DEIR should thoroughly describe the impact of the Project on air quality and the efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts. Staff recommends the inclusion of traffic mitigations to help reduce further impacts to air quality.

Recreation

12.Public Access: The IS states on pg. 2-10 that “Access to the pier ocean ward [sic] of the seating area shall remain open to the public” and on pg. 2-12, “Public access (for non-ticket holders) to the Pier would remain open during future Airshows. Only a portion of the Pier would be reserved for seated ticketholders and pier ingress and egress would still be provided.” Regarding coastline access, the IS states at pg. 3-41 that “vertical and horizontal access to the coastline would be maintained throughout the duration of the event.” While the IS evaluates physical deterioration related to beach activity and beach use (pg. 3-50), the Recreation discussion does not include potential impacts to public use of and recreational opportunities on the beach or pier.

As the City is not restricted to those questions suggested within the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G checklist, please include the following impact question as part of the DEIR’s recreation analysis: “Would the project interfere with existing public use of and recreational opportunities related to the pier and beach?” As part of the analysis, the document should detail, both in text and in diagrams and/or pictures, how public access to the pier and beach will be maintained. Staff recommends that the City consider incorporating public access monitors as potential mitigation to ensure that Project activities do not inhibit or discourage access to public beaches and the Huntington Beach Pier.

Hazardous Materials

13.Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Although the IS determined that there were no potentially significant impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (pg. 3-32), the Project has a potential significant impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials that should be further evaluated in the DEIR. For example, despite the statement on pg. 2-5 that no oil drilling or oil extraction occurs “within the nearby vicinity,” numerous onshore oil wells and related pipelines are nearby, in addition to wells in and adjacent to the BCER. In fact, as the IS notes (pg. 2-5), the 2021 airshow was cut short by an oil spill originating from an offshore oil pipeline. While that particular incident represented an impact on the Airshow from existing activities, the converse is 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 11 March 4, 2024

also reasonably foreseeable, as the Project has the potential to exacerbate existing environmental risks due to the performance of high-risk aerobatic flights over active oil fields, including those in the BCER (California Bldg. Indus.

Ass'n v Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377, 388-389.).

Such overflights have occurred repeatedly in past years’ airshows, despite the statement in the IS that airshow aircraft “seldom fly over land” (pg. 2-10).

Thus, the reasonably foreseeable potential significant impact of an aircraft accident triggering an oil or hazardous material spill should be analyzed in the DEIR, along with avoidance strategies (for example, by avoiding overflights of BCER) and/or mitigation measures.

The IS states at pg. 2-9 that streamer drops are anticipated as part of the opening ceremony on each day of the Airshow. The DEIR should describe and analyze the potentially significant impact that could occur should streamers land on power lines in the BCER and start a fire. During the 2022 Airshow, streamer drops resulted in streamers landing in the BCER near powerlines, leading the BCER CDFW on-site manager to contact Commission staff with concerns about the risk of fire in the active oil field within the BCER.

Please see the previous paragraph as well as comment #1, Project Description, for suggestions on Project design changes and requests for mitigation measures.

Tribal Cultural Resources

14.Consideration of Tribal Cultural Resources: The IS identifies potentially significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (pg. 3-54) but reports that the Project activities would not result in any permanent structures and that no excavations, grading, or trenching would be associated with the construction phase. The inclusion of a beach airstrip in the Project area challenges this conclusion. AB 52 includes both procedural and substantive requirements, including the requirement that lead agencies strive to avoid significant adverse changes to tribal cultural resources, regardless of whether consultation is requested or occurs, and incorporate mitigation measures recommended by tribes unless the lead agency determines those suggestions are not feasible. Please note that it is the Commission’s broader policy to go beyond the requirements of AB 52 by conducting outreach and consultation with all tribes culturally affiliated with a Project area, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, for a proposed Project that may have significant effects on tribal cultural resources. The Commission strongly encourages early, frequent, and meaningful engagement with all culturally affiliated tribes that may be affected by this Project.

12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 12 March 4, 2024

Alternatives

15.Alternatives: Staff recommends the inclusion of a no-Project alternative to provide a baseline for establishing environmental conditions in the Project area. Additionally, if the PD is not revised to specify no overflights will occur over the BCER, then staff recommends the City identify and analyze an alternative which excludes flight paths over the BCER, to potentially reduce the level of impacts to State and Federally protected species. In addition to describing mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Project, the City should identify and analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would attain most of the Project objectives while avoiding or reducing one or more of the potentially significant impacts (see State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6).

Environmental Justice

16.Environmental Justice: Environmental Justice is defined by California law as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (Gov. Code § 65040.12) This definition is consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine’s principle that management of trust lands is for the benefit of all people. The Commission adopted an updated Environmental Justice Policy and Implementation Blueprint in December 2018 to ensure that environmental justice is an essential consideration in the agency’s processes, decisions, and programs. The twelve goals outlined in the Policy reflect an urgent need to address the inequities of the past, so they do not continue.

Through its policy, the Commission reaffirms its commitment to an informed and open process in which all people are treated equitably and with dignity, and in which its decisions are tempered by environmental justice considerations.

Although not legally required in a CEQA document, Commission staff suggests that the City include a section describing the environmental justice community outreach and engagement undertaken in developing the DEIR and the results of such outreach. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed the CalEnviroScreen mapping tool to assist agencies with locating census tracts near proposed Projects and identifying the environmental burdens, should there be any, that disproportionately impact those communities. Environmental justice communities often lack access to the decision-making process and experience barriers to becoming involved in that process. It is crucial that these communities are consulted as early as possible in the Project planning process. Commission staff strongly recommends using the CalEnviroScreen 12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 13 March 4, 2024

tool and then, as applicable, reaching out through local community-based organizations, such as Communities for a Better Environment and Orange County Environmental Justice. Engaging in early outreach will facilitate more equitable access for all community members. In this manner, the CEQA public comment process can improve and provide an opportunity for more members of the public to provide input related to environmental justice.

Commission staff also recommends incorporating or addressing opportunities for community engagement in mitigation measures. Furthermore, a key goal in the Commission’s Environmental Justice Policy and Implementation Blueprint is increasing and supporting equitable public access, as discussed in comment #12, above. Commission staff recommends the City consider environmental justice communities in their analysis. Commission staff will review the environmental justice outreach and associated results as part of any future Commission action.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Project. As a trustee and responsible agency, Commission staff requests consultation on this Project and to be kept advised of changes to the Project Description and all other important developments. Please send additional information on the Project to the Commission staff listed below as the DEIR is being prepared.

Please refer questions concerning environmental review to Robin Tuohy, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected] and Christine Day, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected]. For questions concerning Commission leasing jurisdiction, please contact Kelly Connor, Public Land Management Specialist III, at [email protected]. For questions related to the BCER, please contact Wendy Hall, Environmental Program Manager, at [email protected].

S i n c e r e l y ,

Nicole Dobroski
Chief Division of Environmental Science,
Planning, and Management

Attachments:
1) February 24, 2024, letter from Commission staff to City of Huntington Beach and Code Four
2) August 25, 2023, letter from Commission staff to City of Huntington Beach

cc: Office of Planning and Research
R. Tuohy, Commission
12-32
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 14 March 4, 2024

C. Day, Commission
K. Connor, Commission
W. Hall, Commission
L. Calvo, Commission
Y. Ramirez, Commission
12-32
(cont.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

February 20, 2024
File ref: Lease 6616
Sent via postal and E-Mail ([email protected])

Mr. Eric G. Parra
Interim City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648

Mr. Kevin Elliott
Chief Executive Officer
Code Four
5252 Bolsa Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

SUBJECT: Required Application for Comm ission Authorization for the Operation and Maintenance of Huntington Beach Pier and Pacific Ocean AND Conditions to Protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Dear Mr. Parra and Mr. Elliott:

Page 2 ends

for the Airshow, and staff will send a separate CEQA comment letter as part of the CEQA process.

Required Application for Commission Authorization for the Operation and Maintenance of Huntington Beach Pier and Sovereign Land in the Pacific Ocean:

Page 3 ends

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. Please note that applications can take a minimum of six months to process and schedule for consideration. We encourage the City to complete and submit an application as soon as possible.

Required Application for Lease from Event Operator, Code Four:

The lease application is available online through our website at https://www.slc.ca.gov/leases-permits/. A video is available to assist you in completing the application process. Please note that applications can take a minimum of six months to process and schedule for consideration. We encourage you to complete and submit an application as soon as possible. The Online Application will require you to provide the following (as a minimum):
12-33
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 4 ends

Conditions to Protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve:

Additionally, the Commission, along with five other state and federal agencies informally referred to as the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee, provides overall management oversight of BCER.

During the 2023 airshow, repeated low flyovers by the airshow jets caused disruptions in the normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including 12-33
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 5 ends

feeding and sheltering at BCER. These repeated low flyovers harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over.

Sincerely,
Brian Bugsch
Chief, Land Management Division
cc: see next page
Sincerely,
Brian Bugsch
Chief
, Land Management
12-33
(cont.)
City of Huntington Beach

Page 6 ends

Attachments

12-33
(cont.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

COMMISSION
100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202

JENNIFER LUCCHESI, Executive Officer
916.574.1800
TTY CA Relay Service: 711 or Phone 800.735.2922
from Voice Phone 800.735.2929
or for Spanish 800.855.3000
Contact Phone: 916.574.1900

August 25, 2023

Sent via postal and E-mail ([email protected])

Michael E. Gates
City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California

Subject: Huntington Beach Airshow conditions to protect the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve

Page 2 of 3 ends

During the 2021 and 2022 airshow, several incidents occurred that caused disruptions in the normal behavior patterns of many bird species, including feeding and sheltering at Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Disturbances included dropping streamers in the BCER, causing potential harm to wildlife and fire risk, and repeated low flyovers, which harassed the bird populations and caused them to take flight each time the airplanes flew over. This latter action is -14 251.1. Additionally, under
threat to birds and other wildlife. The BCER is a critical stopover along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16.U.S.C 703-712). These also include threatened and endangered species which are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 1531-1544), and the California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (FGC,1.5, 2050-2115.5). A few that depend heavily on the BCER include the Western snowy plover, Light- rail, Coastal California gnatcatcher, a
In order to avoid a reoccurrence of these concerns this year for the 2023 airshow, we request compliance with the following conditions:

1. No flyovers will occur over BCER.

2. No streamers or any other debris will be dropped over the BCER. 12-34
(cont.)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 546BD703-6F32-49D5-8A10-5D773405B818 considered a "take" and is in violation of CCR T
Section 630 ( 17) of Title 14 "no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation". The sound pollution and overhead flights pose a footed Ridgway's
nd the Belding's savannah sparrow .

Page 3 of 3 ends

We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these concerns and reach a mutual concurrence on a protocol for the event that accommodates the airshow, while protecting the natural resources of BCER.

Please confirm receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,
__________________ ___________________
Wendy Hall Tim Dillingham Environmental Program Manager Environmental Program Manager Special Projects Liaison Lands and Wildlife, South Coast Region California State Lands Commission California Department of Fish & Wildlife cc:

E
XHIBIT 6

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Date: September 17, 2004 AC No: 91-36DSubject: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT

NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE AREAS
Initiated by: ATO-R

ADVISORY

CIRCULAR

1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) encourages pilots making VFR flights near noise- sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation and on flight paths that will reduce aircraft noise in such areas.

2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This advisory circular is effective on September 17, 2004.

3. CANCELLATION. Advisory Circular 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise Sensitive Areas, dated October 19, 1984, is cancelled.

4. AUTHORITY. The FAA has authority to formulate policy regarding use of the navigable airspace (Title 49 United States Code, Section 40103).

5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. This AC has been updated to include a definition of “noise- sensitive” area and add references to Public Law 100-91; the FAA Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Lands, dated November 1996; and the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, with other minor wording changes.

6. BACKGROUND .
a. Excessive aircraft noise can result in annoyance, inconvenience, or inte rference with the uses and enjoyment of property, and can adversely affect wildlife. It is particularly undesirable in areas where it interferes with normal activities asso ciated with the area’s use, including residential, educational, health, and religious structures and sites, and parks, recreational areas (including areas with wilderness characteristics), wildlife refuges, and cultural and historical sites where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute. Moreover, the FAA recognizes that there are locations in National Parks and other federally managed areas that have unique noise-sensitive values. The Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over Federally Managed Areas, issued November 8, 1996, states that it is the policy of the FAA in its management of the navigable airspace over these locations to exercise leadership in achieving an appropriate balance between efficiency, technological practicability, and environmental concerns, while maintaining the highest level of safety. b. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) receives complaints concerning low flying aircraft over noise sensitive areas such as Natio nal Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Waterfowl Production Areas and Wilderness Areas. Congress addressed aircraft fl ights over Grand Canyon National Park in Public Law 100-91 and commercial air tour operations over othe r units of the National Park System (and tribal lands within or abutting such units) in the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000. c. Increased emphasis on improvin g the quality of the environment re quires a continuing effort to provide relief and protection from low flying aircraft noise. d. Potential noise impacts to noise-sensitive areas from low altitude aircraft flights can also be addressed 12-35
0 through application of the vol untary practices set forth in this AC. A dherence to these practices is a practical indication of pilot concern for the environment, which will build support for aviation and alleviate the need for any additional statutory or regulatory actions.

7. DEFINITION. For the purposes of this AC, an area is “noise-sensitive” if noise interferes with normal activities associated with the area’s use. Examples of noise-sensitive areas include residential, educational, health, and religious structures and s ites, and parks, recreational areas (including areas with wilderness characteristics), wildlife refuges, and cultural and h istorical sites where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute.

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.
a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes. b. Pilots operating noise producing air craft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over noise- sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this AC, the ground level of noise-sensitiv e areas is defined to include the highest terrain within 2,000 feet AGL laterally of the route of flight, or the up permost rim of a canyon or valley. The intent of the 2,000 f eet AGL recommendation is to redu ce potential interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances caused by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas. c. Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb af ter take-off, and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas. d. This advisory does not apply where it would co nflict with Federal Aviation Regulations, air traffic control clearances or instructions, or where an altitude of less than 2,000 feet AGL is considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely.

9. COOPERATIVE ACTIONS. Aircraft operators, aviation associa tions, airport managers, and others are asked to assist in voluntary compliance with th is AC by publicizing it an d distributing information regarding known noise-sensitive areas.

Signed
________________________________
Sabra W. Kaulia
Director of System Operations & Safety

Page 2 ends

12-35
(cont.)
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-212 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 12: Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
Response to Comment 12-1
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-2
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-3
As stated in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, page 3.2-1, of the Draft EIR, and as shown on Figure 3.2-1A through Figure 3.2-1J, “For purposes of this biological resources technical analysis, a broader biological study area (BSA) was defined, which includes the Show Center Area (where primary on-the-ground events and activities of the Airshow take place) but also extends beyond this area to reflect the potential impacts associated with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics.” Because the expected flight paths are not planned to cross over the BCER, the majority of the BCER was not included in the study area. However, the biological monitoring efforts that occurred in 2023 did include the BCER and future monitoring efforts would also include the BCER. Refer also to Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER. In summary, while the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s displays in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 12-4
Airshow performer arrivals are contingent upon their schedule and proximity of previous Airshow sites they have attended. All Airshow performers do not arrive to the Airshow Performance Area before the Monday of the Airshow week. These arrivals often include an overflight and aerial survey of the Airshow Performance Area on the inbound to landing on arrival day. If Airshow performers arrive on Monday, they would typically also conduct flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers for up to one hour later in the week prior to the Airshow. Refer also to Master Response D, which discusses the biological monitoring efforts that will be conducted for future Airshows, which includes monitoring during all of the pre-Airshow activities that lead up to the Airshow itself.

Response to Comment 12-5
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-213 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 12-6
Refer to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 12-7
The Draft EIR does not state that “the Project would not include BCER overflights.” Instead, as stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the Draft EIR, The Applicant will provide mandatory in-person or virtual daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all pilots about the location, nature, and sensitivity of the BCER and will request avoidance of overflights over this area. In addition, the Applicant will advise Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) and the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airfield Tower on the location, nature, and sensitivity of the BCER and will request avoidance of overflights in this area. The Applicant will work with Southern California TRACON to establish routes in/out of the Airshow airspace and supporting airfields to avoid overflight of the BCER. When overflights of the BCER cannot be avoided, the Applicant will request that overflights occur at 1,000 feet above ground level or above.

As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR disclosed and analyzed potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Proposed Project, providing mitigation where necessary and feasible. Refer also to Master Response B regarding documented concerns raised by state and federal agencies regarding the Airshow’s impact to sensitive species and habitat.

Response to Comment 12-8
Refer to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 12-9
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-10
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-11
Refer to Response to Comment 2-19 for a discussion of the purpose of the use of streamers and the single occurrence of a streamer that drifted into the BCER. Refer also to Response to Comment 2-11 for a discussion of the actual flight paths and elevations of previous Airshows.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-214 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 12-12
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-13
Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 12-14
Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 12-15
Refer to Response to Comment 12-3 for a discussion of the extent of the biological resource study area, as well as how it was determined, and where future biological monitoring activities will occur, which will include the BCER.

Response to Comment 12-16
As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, on pages 2-6 and 2-7, of the Draft EIR: “Future Airshows are anticipated to be held annually for three (3) days to up to five (5) days, generally Friday through Sunday or up to Wednesday through Sunday, with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. The Draft EIR acknowledges flight rehearsals leading up to the Airshow.

Response to Comment 12-17
The commentor mentions the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular 91-36D (September 17, 2004), indicating the FAA “recommends” (emphasis added) that aircraft avoid noise-sensitive areas, including areas with “wilderness characteristics.” The Advisory Circular is a guidance document, which specifically states, in Section 8d, “This advisory does not apply where it would conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations, air traffic control clearances or instructions, or where an altitude of less than 2,000 feet AGL is considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely.” As reflect in Master Response A, neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-215 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams..

Response to Comment 12-18
Refer to Master Response D for a discussion of the biological monitoring efforts, beyond those already conducted for the 2023 Airshow, that will be conducted for future Airshows to further ensure that impacts to sensitive species would be avoided or reduced. As reflected in Master Response D, monitoring will be included one day before any pre-Airshow-related activities, as well as during all pre-Airshow and Airshow days.

Response to Comment 12-19
As stated on page 3-2, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of the Draft EIR:

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1), an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project from both a local and regional perspective. This description provides the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published. The NOP for the Project was published on February 1, 2024, so February 1, 2024, will serve as the baseline for the environmental impact analysis contained in this Draft EIR.

The determination of the baseline for this environmental analysis is consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Response to Comment 12-20
Refer to Response to Comment 2-11.

Response to Comment 12-21
Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 12-22
Refer also to Response to Comment 2-11 for a discussion of existing flights over the BCER from CDFW and oil operations.

Response to Comment 12-23
Refer to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-216 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 12-24
The Project’s MMRP includes all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and also voluntarily includes Project Description features (e.g., biological monitoring) to ensure enforceability. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

At John Wayne Airport, aircraft activity is prohibited between 11 PM and 7 AM (8 AM on Sundays). In terms of the historic hours of operation of the Airshow, Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-7, of the Draft EIR, states that: “For all Airshow event days, which are open to the public, the Airshow admission, venue, and festival areas are open from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics performing from approximately 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM.” As noted on page of Chapter 2 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, “New Airshow activities for future Airshows could also extend as late as 11:00 PM.” Therefore, the nighttime prohibition (of 11 PM) of the Airshow is consistent with the operating procedures at John Wayne Airport.

Response to Comment 12-25
Refer to Response to Comment 9-10.

Response to Comment 12-26
The public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) started on Thursday, February 1, 2024, and ended on Monday, March 4, 2024. The public review period for the Draft EIR started on February 20, 2025, and ended on April 7, 2025. This letter, prepared by Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP, dated June 29, 2023, was prepared prior to the public review period for the NOP and Draft EIR. This letter is noted and included in the Project record. No further response is required.

Response to Comment 12-27
This letter, prepared by the California State Lands Commission, dated August 25, 2023, was prepared prior to the public review period for the NOP and Draft EIR. This letter is noted and included in the Project record. No further response is required.

Response to Comment 12-28
This letter, prepared by the California State Lands Commission, dated February 20, 2024, largely discusses the required application for State Lands Commission authorization for the operation and maintenance of the City of Huntington Beach Pier and Pacific Ocean. No further response is required for the discussion regarding the authorization of the Pier and Pacific Ocean because this discussion neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Refer to Master Response C.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-217 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 12-29
This letter, prepared by the California State Lands Commission, dated August 10, 2023, discusses the required application for State Lands Commission authorization for the operation and maintenance of the City of Huntington Beach Pier. No further response is required for the discussion regarding the authorization of the Pier because this discussion neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-30
This letter, prepared by the California State Lands Commission, dated August 10, 2023, discusses the required application for State Lands Commission authorization for the operation and maintenance of the City of Huntington Beach Pier. No further response is required for the discussion regarding the authorization of the Pier because this discussion neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-31
This letter, prepared by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), dated February 21, 2024, discusses the requirement of the Airshow to obtain a coastal development permit (CDP). No further response is required for the discussion of the CDP because this discussion neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 12-32
This letter, prepared by the State Lands Commission, dated March 4, 2024, is attached to Comment Letter 2. As such, please see Response to Comment 2-23 through Response to Comment 2-45.

In State Lands Commission, dated March 4, 2024, the commentor notes that “The California State Lands Commission staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach (Project or Airshow), which is being prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (City).” Accordingly, this Responses to Comments document responds to those Notice of Preparation comments that were specifically raised in the Commission’s Draft EIR comment letter. No further response is required.

Response to Comment 12-33
Refer to Response to Comment 12-28.

Response to Comment 12-34
Refer to Response to Comment 12-27.

Response to Comment 12-35
This letter, prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), FAA, dated September 17, 2004, was prepared to encourage pilots making visual flight rules (VFR) flights near noise- Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-218 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher than the minimum permitting by regulation and on flight paths that will reduce aircraft noise in such areas.

This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

April 5, 2025

Via email: [email protected]

Mr. Connor Hyland
Senior Deputy City AƩorney
City of HunƟngton Beach, Oﬃce of the City AƩorney
2000 Main Street
HunƟngton Beach, CA 92648

Subject: Comments on the DraŌ Environmental Impact Report regarding the Paciﬁc Airshow

Dear Mr. Hyland,
I am a resident of Seal Beach who resides in the neighborhood of College Park East. Our neighborhood is very supporƟve of the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), the military, and many of our residents have enjoyed watching aircraŌ deparƟng the base during the airshows over the years. Maps in the IniƟal Study (Figure 4b and Appendix B) show our tract’s proximity to the runways of the JFTB, located immediately southwest of the JFTB’s long runway and immediately west of the Old Ranch Country Club golf course.

Established ﬂight paths leaving the JFTB travel out over the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and turn 180 to pass over the Seal Beach Naval Weapons StaƟon, or Seal Beach Boulevard, toward the ocean. However, during the 2023 Paciﬁc Air Show some of the jets made a very sharp turn to the east and traveled very low over College Park East. I have been told that these jets can be as loud as 140 dBA on departure from the base, so this may well have exposed our residents to noise levels of more than 100 dBA. Such noise levels can be harmful to sensiƟve receptors such as children, sensiƟve individuals, and pets (requiring residents to sedate their pets days in a row).

SecƟon 2 of the DraŌ Environmental Impact Report contains SecƟon 2.6.4, Ɵtled “Airport Origin, Airshow Flight Paths and Airshow Performance DuraƟon.” In this secƟon, it lists the parƟcipaƟng aircraŌ and states, “many of the aircraŌ, parƟcularly the larger ones, seldom ﬂy over land and instead hold out over the water and only make a few passes in front of the Show Center Area before returning to their origin airports.” A statement later in that secƟon states that the airshow ﬂight paths “are subject to change each year for the Airshow.” IniƟal Study SecƟon 5.4.2: Analysis of Project E
ﬀects: Noise states that “The predominant source of
Comment Letter 13
13-1
13-2
13-3
increased noise for this event would be associated with ﬁghter jets execuƟng high velocity maneuvers. Examples of which would be the F/A18 Super hornet, F-16 ﬁghƟng falcon, and F-35 Lightning.” While I support eﬀorts to avoid ﬂights over the Seal Beach Naval Weapons StaƟon’s NaƟonal Wildlife Refuge and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, I have great concerns about the possibility of very loud, fast, low aircraŌ being diverted once again over the College Park East neighborhood. Please follow the established ﬂight routes on departure from the JFTB to limit excessive noise exposure both to the ecological reserves and to the neighborhood of College Park East.

I believe that a 3-day AlternaƟve for the Airshow is a beƩer opƟon, with shows on Saturday and Sunday and a pracƟce day on Friday. With the proposed expansion to a 5-day show, there would be greater impacts during weekdays. These may include impacts on work and school traﬃc, as well as noise impacts for Los Alamitos Uniﬁed School District schools, for those who work from home, and during nighƫme hours if any of the music ﬂyovers originate from the JFTB. A 3-day alternaƟve would provide fun and proﬁt for the event organizer and the City of HunƟngton Beach while limiƟng impacts on the environment and residents of Seal Beach.

Please consider suggested events such as music concerts, sandcastle building, skateboard/BMX and camping as acƟviƟes at a separate event, which could also provide recreaƟon to the public and economic beneﬁts to the event organizer and the City of HunƟngton Beach.

Thank you for your consideraƟon of my comments.

Sincerely,
Schelly Sustarsic
4288 Candleberry Ave
Seal Beach, CA 90740

13-3
(cont.)
13-4
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-221 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 13: Schelly Sustarsic
Response to Comment 13-1
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 13-2
The City has received several comments on the health effects of noise. Multiple studies on the impacts of aircraft noise on public health have been undertaken and more studies are currently underway10, 11, 12 Research suggests that noise can have varying levels of effects on people.

From these studies, criteria have been established to protect public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities. These criteria are based on the effects of noise on people, sleep interference, and physiological responses. While aircraft noise would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels and thus result in a significant impact, it would not have adverse effects on biological resources or human health.

At all times, the FAA, the Airshow, and pilots are committed to the safe operation of aircraft.

Response to Comment 13-3
For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 13-4
Refer to Response to Comment 5-4 and Response to Comment 9-16.

10 The State of the Art of Predicting Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance in Field Settings, Fidell S., Tabachnick, B., Pearsons, K., Noise and Health, Volume 12, Issue 47, p. 77-87, 2010. 11 ACRP Synthesis 9, Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Updated on Selected Topics, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2008. 12 Request for Comments; Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: National Sleep Study, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Agency Information Collection Activities, 84 Fed.

Reg. 65453, November 27, 2019.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-222 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

As discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, the 2023 Airshow Alternative would not include a music festival, helicopter and aircraft runway/display, skateboard/BMX competition, pyrotechnic shows, sandcastle building competition, and beach camping, among other activities/features. The Airshow would continue to be held annually Friday through Sunday during the fall season with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. The 2023 Airshow Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts as compared to the Project and is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

However, this alternative would not meet all of the Project Objectives. Furthermore, the 2023 Airshow Alternative would reduce the opportunity to gather since fewer events would be held over fewer days. With fewer activities, it is anticipated that the positive economic impact, the potential tax revenues, and the number of employees needed to staff the Airshow would each potentially be reduced. In addition, without offering the events promoting the beach community, including beach camping and sandcastle building among others, there would be a reduced positive impact to the promotion of the Huntington Beach Pier and beaches.

From: Susan Perrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2025 4:23 PM
To: Hyland, Connor <[email protected]>
Subject:
ĺııôĲťŜϙĺĲϙťēôϙ"ŘÍċťϙ(ĲŽĖŘĺĲıôĲťÍīϙIıŕÍèťϙôŕĺŘťϙϼ"(IϽϙċĺŘϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙ Airshow Huntington Beach Project (SCH#2024020006)

Mr. Connor Hyland
Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 4th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Mr. Hyland:

ēÍĲħϙƅĺŪϙċĺŘϙťēôϙĺŕŕĺŘťŪĲĖťƅϙťĺϙèĺııôĲťϙĺĲϙťēôϙ"(IϙċĺŘϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙĖŘŜēĺſϙFŪĲťĖĲČťĺĲϙ Beach Project (Project). I want to express my enthusiasm and support for the Huntington Beach Airshow that my family, friends, neighbors, and I have enjoyed over the years.

However, certain aspects of the proposed Project and the Project DEIR concern me. My èĺııôĲťŜϙæôīĺſϙÍŘôϙĖĲťôĲîôîϙťĺϙēôīŕϙèīÍŘĖċƅϙťēôϙŜèĺŕôϙĺċϙťēôϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙŘĺĤôèťϠϙƱīīϙĖĲϙŜĺıôϙ critical gaps in the Project DEIR, ensure that the Project Alternatives are properly èĺĲŜĖîôŘôîϠϙÍĲîϙôĲŜŪŘôϙťēÍťϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīīƅϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙôĲŽĖŘĺĲıôĲťÍīϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙÍŘôϙÍîôŗŪÍťôīƅϙ assessed and avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. I believe that a more complete ÍĲîϙÍèèŪŘÍťôϙ(IϙèÍĲϙæôϙŕŘĺîŪèôîϙŘôīÍťĖŽôīƅϙŗŪĖèħīƅϙÍĲîϙôÍŜĖīƅ and will help to drive support for the Air Show.

x The DEIR rejected “Project Alternative 2” for “not meeting the Project Objectives in their entirety” . IťϙĖŜϙĲĺťϙèīôÍŘϙťēÍťϙ
(ϙŘôŗŪĖŘôŜϙÍϙŽĖÍæīôϙÍĲîϙċôÍŜĖæīôϙŕŘĺĤôèťϙ
alternative to meet “Project Objectives in their entirety”. CEQA guidance and case studies seems to indicate that a viable alternative needs only to “ feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives” . The reasoning in the DEIR for eliminating Project Alternative2 does not seem appropriate or consistent with CEQA. Project Alternative 2 is a highly feasible project alternative that clearly meets most of the Comment Letter 14
14-1
14-2
project objectives, while also avoiding and mitigating impacts, and it has proven successful in all recent Airshows. The EIR should review Alternative 2 in more detail.

IċϙīťôŘĲÍťĖŽôϙ͑ϙĖŜϙťĺϙæôϙôīĖıĖĲÍťôîϠϙťēôĲϙťēôϙ(IϙŜēĺŪīîϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙŜŕôèĖƱèϙŘôÍŜĺĲĖĲČϠϙ including CEQA Code citations, CEQA Guideline citations, and relevant CEQA case studies that could justify its elimination.
x The EIR should assess the potential for long-term hearing loss to children and adults attending the airshow for the three-day program and for the proposed 5-day program. It is well known that even short-term exposure to noise over 90dB can cause permanent hearing loss. aÍĲƅϙƲĖČēťŜϙÍťϙťēôϙÍĖŘŜēĺſϙexceed 90dB at receptor īĺèÍťĖĺĲŜϙĖĲèīŪîĖĲČϙťēôϙŕĖôŘϠϙæôÍèēϠϙ
FϠϙÍèĖƱèϙ
ĖťƅϠϙÍĲîϙťēôϙæīĺèħŜϙŜŪŘŘĺŪĲîĖĲČϙ
the Airshow with densely populated visitors and residents. Hearing loss in children and adults is already a growing problem that has been shown to reduce learning success, mental health, and lifetime earnings. The Project should propose ıĖťĖČÍťĖĺĲϙċĺŘϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīīƅϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙĺċϙĲĺĖŜôϙôƄŕĺŜŪŘôϙîŪŘĖĲČϙťēôϙÍĖŘŜēĺſϠϙ especially to children. Warnings or suggestions to wear hearing protection would help to avoid hearing loss. ôŗŪôŜťĖĲČϙĖŘŜēĺſϙŽôĲîĺŘŜϠϙôƄēĖæĖťĺŘŜϠϙ ƱŘŜťϙÍĖîϙ ŜťÍťĖĺĲŜϠϙÍĲîϙťĖèħôťϙæĺĺťēŜϙťĺϙîĖŜťŘĖæŪťôϙĺŘϙŜôīīϙôƯôèťĖŽôϙÍĲîϙĖĲôƄŕôĲŜĖŽôϙēôÍŘĖĲČϙ protection, such as sponge type earplugs, would mitigate the short term and long- term hearing loŜŜôŜϙċŘĺıϙĖŘϙēĺſϙƲĖČēťϙĲĺĖŜôϟϙ
x ēôϙŘĺĤôèťϙ"ôŜèŘĖŕťĖĺĲϙŜēĺŪīîϙĖĲèīŪîôϙÍϙèĺĲèĖŜôϙîôƱĲĖťĖĺĲϙĺċϙťēôϙŘĺĤôèťϙŘôÍϟϙēôϙ ŘĺĤôèťϙŘôÍϙŜēĺŪīîϙĖĲèīŪîôϙÍīīϙÍŘôÍŜϙſēôŘôϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīīƅϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙĲĺĖŜôϠϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϠϙ or hazard impacts of the Project may occur. The Project Area should not be limited ťĺϙťēôϙЊēĺſϙ
ôĲťôŘϙŘôÍЋϙæôèÍŪŜôϙťēôϙĖŘϙēĺſϙēÍŜϙèīôÍŘīƅϙÍĲîϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťīƅϙ impacted areas well outside of the “Show Center Area” in previous years and there is no explanation, avoidance measure, or mitigation provided in the DEIR that would limit future impacts to just the “Show Center Area” .
x ēôϙŘĺĤôèťϙŘôÍϙŜēĺŪīîϙĖĲèīŪîôϙĺƯŜēĺŘôϙÍĲîϙĺĲŜēĺŘôϙÍŘôÍŜϙæôīĺſϙÍĲîϙÍîĤÍèôĲťϙťĺϙ ÍĲƅϙŕīÍĲĲôîϙĺŘϙŕĺŜŜĖæīôϙƲĖČēťϙŕÍťēŜϙťĺϙÍĲîϙċŘĺıϙÍĲƅϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīϙƲĖČēťϙĺŘĖČĖĲϙĺŘϙ destination. IťϙĖŜϙôŜŕôèĖÍīīƅϙĖıŕĺŘťÍĲťϙťēÍťϙťēôϙ(IϙĖĲèīŪîôϙÍŘôÍŜϙÍîĤÍèôĲťϙťĺϙƲĖČēťϙ paths whôŘôϙƲƅĖĲČϙıÍƅϙĺèèŪŘϙÍťϙÍĲĺıÍīĺŪŜīƅϙīĺſϙϼĲĺĲ-commercial, non-standard) ôīôŽÍťĖĺĲŜϙťēÍťϙèĺŪīîϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťīƅϙĖĲèŘôÍŜôϙĲĺĖŜôϠϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϠϙÍĲîϙēÍƏÍŘîϙĖıŕÍèťŜϟϙ x Impacts outside of the “Show Center Area” , such as the documented historical ĖıŕÍèťŜϙťĺϙŕŘĺťôèťôîϙŜŕôèĖôŜϙĖĲϙťēôϙĺīŜÍϙ
ēĖèÍϠϙÍĲîϙťĺϙēŪıÍĲϙŘôèôŕťĺŘŜϙĲôÍŘϙƲĖČēťϙ
paths, should be discussed, assessed, and mitigated to the extent feasible. 14-2
(cont.)
14-3
14-4
14-5
14-6
I
x FĖŜťĺŘĖèÍīϙĖŘŜēĺſϙĖıŕÍèťŜϠϙŜŪèēϙÍŜϙťēôϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙϼôϟČϟϠϙЊťÍħôŜЋϙ and ЊƲŪŜēĖĲČŜЋϙĺċϙŕŘĺťôèťôîϙŜŕôèĖôŜϽϙÍĲîϙēÍƏÍŘîϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙϼôϟČϟϠϙôīôèťŘĖèÍīϙ ôŗŪĖŕıôĲťϙĖĲťôŘċôŘôĲèôϽϙ of previous Air Show operations should be reviewed in the EIR. The EIϙŜēĺŪīîϙĖĲèīŪîôϙŜŕôèĖƱèϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙÍŽĺĖîÍĲèôϙĺŘϙıĖťĖČÍťĖĺĲϙıôÍŜŪŘôŜϙċĺŘϙ any such impacts in the future. A low-ƲƅĖĲČϙŕīÍĲôϙƲŪŜēĖĲČϙƲĺèħŜϙĺċϙæĖŘîŜϙċŘĺıϙťēôϙ Bolsa Chica could have resulted in a catastrophic bird strike … it seems cavalier, at best, not to address this historical “near miss” in the DEIR. It should be addressed in the EIR.
x The EIR should address the history of deviations from the Airshow’s ЊŕīÍĲĲôîЋϙƲĖČēťϙ ŕÍťēŜϠϙÍĲîϙťēôϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīϙċĺŘϙċŪťŪŘôϙîôŽĖÍťĖĺĲϙċŘĺıϙĖŘŜēĺſЍŜϙèŪŘŘôĲťīƅϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙƲĖČēťϙ ŕÍťēŜϠϙÍīĺĲČϙſĖťēϙıôÍŜŪŘôŜϙťĺϙÍŽĺĖîϙĺŘϙıĖťĖČÍťôϙċŪťŪŘôϙƲĖČēťϙŕÍťēϙîôŽĖÍťĖĺĲϠϙ especially in and around sensitive or hazardous receptor areas. x ēôϙ(IϙŜēĺŪīîϙîôŜèŘĖæôϙťēôϙŜŕôèĖƱèϙťƅŕôŜϙĺċϙÍĖŘèŘÍċťϙťĺϙæôϙƲĺſĲϠϙĖĲèīŪîĖĲČϙťēôϙ ŜŕôèĖƱèϙťƅŕôŜϙĺċϙÍĖŘèŘÍċťϙŕŘĺŕĺŜôîϙċĺŘϙæôÍèēϙťÍħôĺƯŜϙÍĲîϙīÍĲîĖĲČŜϟ x The EIR should assess the potential biological and hazard impacts of beach īÍĲîĖĲČŜϙÍĲîϙťÍħôĺƯŜϙÍĲîϙŕŘĺŽĖîôϙĖıŕÍèťϙÍŽĺĖîÍĲèôϙĺŘϙıĖťĖČÍťĖĺĲϙıôÍŜŪŘôŜϙťĺϙťēôϙ extent feasible.
x Since many shorebirds are famously resistant to hazing, and/or exhibit only very short-term response to hazing, continuous and close on site biological monitoring, ſĖťēϙîĖŘôèťϙèĺııŪĲĖèÍťĖĺĲŜϙťĺϙťēôϙƲĖČēťϙèĺĲťŘĺīīôŘϠϙ should take place before and during eaèēϙæôÍèēϙīÍĲîĖĲČϙÍĲîϙťÍħôĺƯϠϙťĺϙıĖťĖČÍťôϙťēôϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙ biological and hazard impacts of bird strikes.
x The EIR should provide more information on the itinerary of events for each ĖĲîĖŽĖîŪÍīϙîÍƅϠϙôŜŕôèĖÍīīƅϙċĺŘϙƲĖČēťŜϠϙƱŘôſĺŘħŜϠϙÍĲîϙŕƅŘĺťôèēĲĖèŜϙſēĖèēϙēÍŽôϙťēôϙ potential for greater impacts.
x The EIR should specify the types of items meant to be included as ‘pyrotechnics’; how, when, and where pyrotechnics will be operated; the potential impacts of pyrotechnics, and how impacts will be avoided or mitigated. x F(ϙ"(IϙÍîîŘôŜŜôîϙĺĲīƅϙťēôϙĲĺĖŜôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙÍĲîϙıĖťĖČÍťĖĺĲϙċŘĺıϙÍıŕīĖƱôîϙèĺĲèôŘťϙ ıŪŜĖèϙĲĺĖŜôϟϙFĺſôŽôŘϠϙťēôϙĖŘŜēĺſϙēÍŜϠϙĖĲϙťēôϙŕÍŜťϠϙČôĲôŘÍťôîϙŜĖČĲĖƱèÍĲťϙĲĺĖŜôϙ ĖıŕÍèťŜϙťĺϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϙÍĲîϙēŪıÍĲϙŘôŜĺŪŘèôŜϙċŘĺıϙƲĖČēťŜϟϙēôϙ(IϙŜēĺŪīîϙŜŕôèĖƱèÍīīƅϙ address prevĖĺŪŜϙÍĲîϙŕĺťôĲťĖÍīϙċŪťŪŘôϙĲĺĖŜôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙċŘĺıϙƲĖČēťŜϠϙƱŘôſĺŘħŜϠϙÍĲîϙ ŕƅŘĺťôèēĲĖèŜϙÍŜϙſôīīϙÍŜϙċŘĺıϙÍıŕīĖƱôîϙèĺĲèôŘťϙıŪŜĖèϟϙ
14-7
14-8
14-9
14-10
14-11
14-12
14-13
14-14
l
I
I
I
I
x The EIR should describe noise and noise impacts to attendees, wildlife, and human ÍĲîϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϙŘôèôŕťĺŘŜϙĲôÍŘϙƲĖČēťϙŕÍťēŜϙċŘĺıϙôŽôĲĖĲČϙƲĖČēťŜϙÍĲîϙŕƅŘĺťôèēĲĖèŜϙ through the proposed 11:00 p.m. closing time or whatever time such noise will be ended each day.
x The EIR should assess and propose mitigation for the added impacts (including noise and hazards) to human receptors, protected species (particularly in the Bolsa Chica), and to pets due to the proposed 5-day event schedule. Extending the event into regular school and work weekdays may result in additional noise, safety, biological, and hazard impacts, as well as nuisance impacts. x The EIR should specify what “streamers” are, what they are made of, their size, what ŕĺťôĲťĖÍīϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙϼôϟČϟϠϙæĖĺīĺČĖèÍīϠϙŜÍċôťƅϙĺŘϙƱŘôϙēÍƏÍŘîŜϠϙôťèϟϽϠťēôƅϙıÍƅϙŕĺŜôϠϙſēÍťϙ happens to them when they are ‘released’ into the environment. Previously reported streamer impacts should be discussed and mitigation (such as streamer retrieval) for potential biological and hazard impacts should be included.

Best,

Susan Perrell
Seal Beach

14-15
14-16
14-17
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-227 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 14: Susan Perrell
Response to Comment 14-1
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 14-2
As described in Chapter 4, Alternatives, pages 4-3 and 4-4, the Offsite Location Alternative and the Avoidance of Flying over Bolsa Chica Alternative were rejected because implementation is considered remote and speculative or some of the goals and objectives would not be met.

As described in Chapter 4, Alternatives, page 4-10, CEQA Guidelines require that, if the No Project Alternative is determined to be the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must also be identified among the remaining alternatives. As such, the 2023 Airshow Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts as compared to the Project and is considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, this alternative would not meet all of the Project Objectives. Furthermore, the 2023 Airshow Alternative would reduce the opportunity to gather since fewer events would be held over fewer days.

The 2023 Airshow Alternative would not meet the following Project objectives in their entirety:
• Continue to provide a family-oriented, safe, educational, fun, and entertaining Airshow experience with an emphasis on outdoor lifestyle and popular culture elements. • Continue to provide a gathering place where locals and visitors can come together to enjoy civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, illustrations, displays, food, and music.
• Create a net positive direct economic impact on the City and surrounding communities as a result of spending by incremental visiting attendees, the event organizer, and event sponsors. • Increase in tax revenues (i.e., sales tax and transit occupancy tax) to the City. • Continue to provide temporary and full-time jobs associated with the Airshow.

Since the 2023 Airshow Alternative would not include a music festival, helicopter and aircraft runway/display, skateboard/BMX competition, pyrotechnic shows, sandcastle building competition, and beach camping, among other activities/features, fewer family-oriented events would be offered. With fewer activities, it is anticipated that the positive economic impact, the potential tax revenues, and the number of employees needed to staff the Airshow would each potentially be reduced. In addition, without offering the events promoting the beach community, including beach camping and sandcastle building among others, there would be a reduced positive impact to the promotion of the Huntington Beach Pier and beaches.

Response to Comment 14-3
The City has received several comments on the health effects of noise. Multiple studies on the impacts of aircraft noise on public health have been undertaken and more studies are currently Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-228 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

underway13, 14, 15 Research suggests that noise can have varying levels of effects on people.

Aircraft operations during future Airshows may temporarily exceed the City’s established noise limits during daytime and nighttime hours, including noise sensitive land uses. Data collected during the 2023 Airshow indicates that noise levels could surpass the City’s established noise limits by as much as 50 dB. However, these elevated noise levels are expected to be brief and not sustained over long periods.

At all times, the FAA, the Airshow, and pilots are committed to the safe operation of aircraft.

While the pilot has ultimate control of the aircraft while in flight, the FAA has the primary role of ensuring safe and efficient use of the National Airspace System (NAS). Aircraft will adhere to predetermined flight path to avoid residential areas as much as possible. This includes having aircraft remain over water whenever operationally feasible to reduce noise exposure to area further inland from the coast. However, neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities.. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 14-4
As described in the Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.1, Project Location, page 2-1, of the Draft EIR, the Airshow Performance Area, the primary area for civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, is located adjacent to the Show Center Area over the Pacific Ocean with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 feet from the shoreline and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 feet. A majority of the civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics occur within approximately 500 and 1,500 feet from the shoreline. However, many of the aircraft maneuvers, particularly for the military, spill out into the TFR airspace controlled by the Airshow. The TFR, as issued by the FAA for the Airshow, is a five NM ring centered on the center of the Airshow’s aerobatic box. The restricted airspace within the ring extends from the

13 The State of the Art of Predicting Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance in Field Settings, Fidell S., Tabachnick, B., Pearsons, K., Noise and Health, Volume 12, Issue 47, p. 77-87, 2010. 14 ACRP Synthesis 9, Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Updated on Selected Topics, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2008. 15 Request for Comments; Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: National Sleep Study, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Agency Information Collection Activities, 84 Fed.

Reg. 65453, November 27, 2019.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-229 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

surface to 15,000 feet above MSL. Neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities..

Further, As noted in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.2.1 Environmental Setting, pages 3.2-1 and 3.2.-2, the proposed flight path and a 500-foot buffer was examined. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 14-5
Refer to Master Response C and Response to Comment 14-4. For analysis regarding biological resources, hazards, and noise, refer to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 3.4, Noise, of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 14-6
For a discussion on noise, refer to Response to Comment 5-3. For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D. Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 14-7
Biological monitoring is being implemented during take-offs and landings under Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 under Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, to address potential hazard impacts associated with the Airshow. Section 3.3 further provides a wildlife hazard analysis including bird strikes.

For a discussion on noise, refer to Response to Comment 5-3. For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D. For a discussion on mitigation, refer to Response to Comment 2-15. Refer to Master Response B for a discussion of purported prior evidence submitted by the State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding biological impacts resulting from past Airshow events.

Response to Comment 14-8
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.6.4 Airport Origin, Airshow Flight Paths, and Airshow Performance Duration, page 2-10, the Applicant will work with Southern California TRACON to establish routes in/out of the Airshow airspace and supporting airfields to avoid overflight of the BCER. When overflights of the BCER cannot be avoided, the Applicant Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-230 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

will request that that overflights occur at 1,000 feet AGL or higher. However, neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. Many commenters have requested the avoidance of flights over the BCER and that any overflight of the BCER occur at an altitude of 1,000 feet AGL or higher. As stated above, all pre-flight briefings will include these exact requests made to all participating pilots. While it is the desire of the Applicant to avoid incursions over the BCER, it is important to note that neither the Applicant nor the City possesses authority to restrict such activities.

While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s displays in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 14-9
For Airshow Performers, refer to Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-9 and 2-10 of the Draft EIR. The Airshow list of performers is subject to change each year for the Airshow.

Response to Comment 14-10
Prior to the start of the Airshow, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be followed evaluating the potential risk of wildlife strikes at, specifically for the proposed temporary aircraft landing pad on the beach. Biological monitoring is also being implemented during take-offs and landings under Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 under Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials to address potential hazards and inform recommendations associated with wildlife hazards at the Airshow.

Response to Comment 14-11
Refer to Response to Comment 14-10. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D.

Response to Comment 14-12
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9, of the Draft EIR, from prior years, typically each day the Airshow begins around 10:00 AM with the MV-22 Osprey streamer drop, then the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) water drop, followed by the Australian Anthem, Canadian Anthem, and the United States Anthem, and then followed by the U.S. Navy Leap Frog Parachute Team with American Flag banner tow. The official start of the Airshow is immediately after, at approximately 10:30 AM, when the below-mentioned Airshow civilian and military performers display aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics in designated time slots with the final performer being the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds or the U.S. Navy Blue Angels concluding by 5:00 PM. Aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers could potentially occur as Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-231 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

early as 9:00 AM on Airshow event days. The Airshow performer schedule and the Airshow performers are subject to change each year for the Airshow.

Pyrotechnic daily shows could be discharged from either aircraft or discharged from the Huntington Beach Pier or an ocean barge and would occur during the days and hours of the Airshow. Pyrotechnic nightly shows could be discharged from either aircraft (nighttime flyovers) or discharged from the Huntington Beach Pier or an ocean barge and would conclude by 11:00 PM each evening of the Airshow. The schedule for pyrotechnics will be made available prior to each Airshow day and are subject to change each year for the Airshow.

Fireworks and pyrotechnics are addressed in Appendix B, Initial Study (see Section XIII, Noise, pages 3-44 and 3-45).

Response to Comment 14-13
Refer to Response to Comment 14-12.

Response to Comment 14-14
Refer to Response to Comment 14-3 and Response to Comment 14-5 with respect to future noise impacts from flights. Fireworks and pyrotechnics are addressed in Appendix B, Initial Study (see Section XIII, Noise, pages 3-44 and 3-45).

Response to Comment 14-15
Aircraft operations during future Pacific Airshow may temporarily exceed established noise limits, including during nighttime hours. Future events may feature nighttime demonstrations by advanced F-series fighter jets such as the F-15, F-18, and F-35. Data collected during the 2023 Airshow indicates that noise levels could surpass the City of Huntington Beach’s standard noise thresholds by as much as 50 dB. However, these elevated noise levels are expected to be brief and not sustained over long periods.

To mitigate the impact of nighttime aircraft noise on the surrounding community, event organizers have integrated several noise-reduction strategies into the Airshow’s planning. These include ensuring aircraft adhere to predetermined flight paths that are carefully designed to avoid residential areas whenever possible and keeping aircraft operations over water to the greatest extent feasible, reducing noise exposure for inland areas further from the coast. However, neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities.. Refer also to Master Response A for a more detailed Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-232 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

discussion of how flight paths are determined and the protocols employed to reduce impacts to the BCER.

Response to Comment 14-16
Refer to Response to Comment 14-15.

Response to Comment 14-17
Refer to Response to Comment 2-19.

From: Kathryn Sinacori <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 8:04 AM
To: Hyland, Connor <[email protected]>
Subject: ÍèĖƱèϙĖŘŜēĺſϙ"(IϙôŜŕĺĲŜô

City of Huntington Beach
ťťĲϡϙ
ĺĲĲĺŘϙFƅīÍĲîϠϙôĲĖĺŘϙ"ôŕŪťƅϙ
ĖťƅϙťťĺŘĲôƅ
2000 Main Street, 4
th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
[email protected]

March 12, 2025

IЍıϙſŘĖťĖĲČϙťĺϙŘôŕŘôŜôĲťϙťēôϙĖĲťôŘôŜťŜϙĺċϙıƅϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙſēôĲϙĖťϙèĺıôŜϙťĺϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙ ĖŘŜēĺſϟ ēôϙbôſŕĺŘťϙēĺŘôŜϙĖŜϙīĺèÍťôîϙſĖťēĖĲϙťēôϙèĖťƅϙīĖıĖťŜϙĺċϙbôſŕĺŘťϙôÍèēϠϙæŪťϙŽôŘƅϙ èīĺŜôϙťĺϙťēôϙĖŘŜēĺſϙôŽôĲťϙŜĖťôϟ ĺϙıŪèēϙŜĺϙťēÍťϙſôϙŜŪƯôŘϙÍīīϙĺċϙťēôϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙôƯects of this ÍĲĲŪÍīϙĲĖČēťıÍŘôϙſĖťēĺŪťϙŘôèôĖŽĖĲČϙÍĲƅϙĺċϙťēôϙèĺıŕôĲŜÍťĖĺĲϙĺŘϙŕŘĺťôèťĖĺĲϙĺƯôŘôîϙťĺϙťēôϙ FŪĲťĖĲČťĺĲϙôÍèēϙŘôŜĖîôĲťŜϙſēĺϙÍŘôϙÍīŜĺϙĲôČÍťĖŽôīƅϙÍƯôèťôîϟ

[ôťЍŜϙŜťÍŘťϙæƅϙÍîîŘôŜŜĖĲČϙťēôϙĲĺĖŜôϙŕĺīīŪťĖĺĲϟ ®ēĖīôϙťēôϙÍèťŪÍīϙôŽôĲťϙĖŜϙŕŪæīĖèĖƏôîϙťĺϙæôČĖĲϙ ĺĲϙÍϙ>ŘĖîÍƅϙÍĲîϙīÍŜťϙťēŘĺŪČēϙŪĲťĖīϙŪĲîÍƅϠϙťēĺŜôϙĺċϙŪŜϙſēĺϙīĖŽôϙŪĲîôŘϙťēôϙƲĖČēťϙŕÍťēϙÍŘôϙ ÍſÍŘôϙťēÍťϙťēôϙîôÍċôĲĖĲČϙŜĺŪĲîŜϙŪŜŪÍīīƅϙæôČĖĲϙĺĲϙŪôŜîÍƅϟ We get at least three extra days of this constant racket. ®ēôĲϙIϙťôīīϙƅĺŪϙťēÍťϙIϙÍèťŪÍīīƅϙŕŘÍƅϙċĺŘϙċĺČČƅϙŜħĖôŜϙťĺϙÍťϙīôÍŜťϙīĖıĖťϙ ťēôϙĖıŕÍèťϙĺĲϙıƅϙôÍŘîŘŪıŜϙÍĲîϙĲôŘŽôŜϦ IЍıϙĲĺťϙĤĺħĖĲČϟ

bĺſϙīôťЍŜϙıĺŽôϙĺĲϙťĺϙťēôϙèĺıŕīôťôϙīÍèħϙĺċϙŕÍŘħĖĲČϙĖĲϙıƅϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙîŪŘĖĲČϙťēôϙÍèťŪÍīϙ ĖŘŜēĺſϟ ®ôϙÍŘôϙīĺèÍťôîϙèīĺŜôϙôĲĺŪČēϙťĺϙťēôϙôŽôĲťϙŜĖťôϙťēÍťϙŕôĺŕīôϙċŘĺıϙÍīīϙĺŽôŘϙĺŪťēôŘĲϙ

ÍīĖċĺŘĲĖÍϙťÍħôϙĺŽôŘϙĺŪŘϙŜťŘôôťŜϟ ēôƅϙſÍīħϠϙæĖħôϙĺŘϙæôŘϙťĺϙťēôϙôŽôĲťϙŜĖťôϙĺĲèôϙťēôƅϙŕÍŘħϙ ťēôĖŘϙŽôēĖèīôŜϠϙıÍħĖĲČϙĖťϙĖıŕĺŜŜĖæīôϙċĺŘϙĺŪŘϙŘôŜĖîôĲťŜϙťĺϙŕÍŘħϙĺŪŘϙèÍŘŜϙĺĲϙťēôϙŜťŘôôťŜϙĺŪťŜĖîôϙ ĺŪŘϙĺſĲϙēĺıôŜϟ As a beach-ÍîĤÍèôĲťϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϠϙſôЍŘôϙŪŜôîϙťĺϙŕŘĖıÍŘĖīƅϙŪŜĖĲČϙĺŪŘϙ Comment Letter 15
15-1
15-2
15-3
ČÍŘÍČôŜϙÍĲîϙŜēÍŘĖĲČϙťēôϙŜťŘôôťŜϙſĖťēϙŽĖŜĖťĺŘŜϟ ŪťϙťēĖŜϙĺĲôϙſôôħôĲîϙîŪŘĖĲČϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙ ĖŘŜēĺſϙıÍħôŜϙĖťϙċôôīϙīĖħôϙťēôϙ͓th ĺċϙVŪīƅϙċĺŘϙťēŘôôϙŜťŘÍĖČēťϙîÍƅŜϟϙĲîϙĲĺťϙĖĲϙÍϙČĺĺîϙſÍƅϟ These ŽĖŜĖťĺŘŜϠϙċĺŘϙťēôϙıĺŜťϙŕÍŘťϠϙŜôôıϙťĺϙťēĖĲħϙĺŪŘϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϙĖŜϙĺĲôϙæĖČϙîŪıŕĖĲČϙČŘĺŪĲîϙċĺŘϙÍīīϙ ťēôϙťŘÍŜēϙťēôƅϙîĺĲЍťϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙæŘĖĲČϙēĺıôϙĖĲϙťēôĖŘϙèÍŘŜϟ ēôƅϙīôÍŽôϙîôæŘĖŜϙÍīīϙĺŽôŘϙťēôϙ ŜĖîôſÍīħŜϙÍĲîϙČŪťťôŘŜϙſĖťēĺŪťϙÍϙŜôèĺĲîϙťēĺŪČēťϟ

The
ĖťƅϙĺċϙbôſŕĺŘťϙôÍèēϙēÍŜϙıÍîôϙĲĺϙÍťťôıŕťϙťĺϙıĖťĖČÍťôϙťēôϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙôƯôèťŜϙſôϙ ôƄŕôŘĖôĲèôϙîŪŘĖĲČϙťēôϙĖŘŜēĺſϟ ®ôϙÍŘôĲЍťϙČĖŽôĲϙÍĲƅϙŜĺŘťϙĺċϙŕôŘıĖťťôîϙŕÍŘħĖĲČϙŕÍŜŜôŜϙĺŘϙ ÍîîĖťĖĺĲÍīϙťŘÍŜēϙŜôŘŽĖèôŜϟ ®ôϙÍŘôϙôƄŕôèťôîϙťĺϙÍæŜĺŘæϙťēôϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙĖıŕÍèťϙĺċϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙ AĖŘŜēĺſϙæôèÍŪŜôϙЌŕôĺŕīôϙŜôôıϙťĺϙīĖħôϙĖťЍ ϟ ĲîϙæôèÍŪŜôϙFŪĲťĖĲČťĺĲϙôÍèēϙƱĲîŜϙĖťϙŽôŘƅϙ ŕŘĺƱťÍæīôϟ

IЍıϙÍŜħĖĲČϙċĺŘϙƅĺŪŘϙèĺĲŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺĲϙÍŜϙƅĺŪϙôŽÍīŪÍťôϙťēôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙĺċϙťēôϙFŪĲťĖĲČťĺĲϙôÍèēϙ ÍèĖƱèϙĖŘŜēĺſϟ īôÍŜôϙħôôŕϙĖĲϙıĖĲîϙťēôϙŜÍċôťƅϙĺċϙťēĖŜϙbôſŕĺŘťϙôÍèēϙĲôĖČēæĺŘēĺĺîϟ We ÍŘôϙĲĺťϙīĺèÍťôîϙŪĲîôŘϙÍĲƅϙèĺııôŘèĖÍīϙƲĖČēťϙŕÍťēϠϙÍϙċÍèťϙſēĖèēϙĖĲƲŪôĲèôîϙıƅϙŕŪŘèhase of my home. bĺſϙÍīīϙĺċϙÍϙŜŪîîôĲϠϙIЍıϙŪĲîôŘĲôÍťēϙťēôϙſĺŘŜťϙŜĺŘťϙĺċϙÍĖŘèŘÍċťϙťŘÍŽôīϙċĺŘϙĺĲôϙſôôħϙ ĺŪťϙĺċϙôŽôŘƅϙƅôÍŘϙſĖťēϙĲĺϙŕŘĺťôèťĖĺĲϙĺŘϙèĺĲŜĖîôŘÍťĖĺĲϙċŘĺıϙôĖťēôŘϙFŪĲťĖĲČťĺĲϙôÍèēϙĺŘϙôŽôĲϙ ıƅϙĺſĲϙ
ĖťƅϙĺƯĖèĖÍīŜϙēôŘôϙĖĲϙbôſŕĺŘťϙôÍèēϟ IťЍŜϙıƅϙŪĲîôŘŜťÍĲîing that rather than seek to ıĖťĖČÍťôϙťēôϙĲôČÍťĖŽôϙĖıŕÍèťŜϙĺċϙťēôϙÍèĖƱèϙĖŘŜēĺſϠϙťēôϙôŽôĲťϙĺŘČÍĲĖƏôŘŜϙĤŪŜťϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙıÍħôϙ ôŽôŘƅťēĖĲČϙæĖČČôŘϟ ®ēĖèēϙŘôÍîŜϙťĺϙıƅϙôƅôŜϙťēÍťϙťēôƅϙĤŪŜťϙſÍĲťϙťĺϙıÍħôϙôŽôŘƅťēĖĲČϙſĺŘŜôϙċĺŘϙ those of us already forced to carry the buŘîôĲϙĺċϙťēôĖŘϙôŽôĲťϟ

Kathryn Sinacori
463 62
nd Street
bôſŕĺŘťϙôÍèēϠϙ
ϙ͕͕͑͒͘
(949) 233-4736
[email protected]

15-3
(cont.)
15-4
15-5
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-235 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 15: Kathryn Sinacori
Response to Comment 15-1
This comment is noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 15-2
Aircraft operations during future Airshows may temporarily exceed established noise limits. Data collected during the 2023 Airshow indicates that noise levels could surpass the City of Huntington Beach’s standard noise thresholds by as much as 50 dB. However, these elevated noise levels are expected to be brief and not sustained over long periods. For further discussion on noise, refer to Response to Comment 5-3 and 5-4.

Response to Comment 15-3
The Applicant and City will continue to coordinate as applicable with neighboring jurisdictions that may be impacted with increases of vehicles along Pacific Coast Highway and surrounding streets. The Airshow typically utilizes approximately 500 parking spaces for production and staging of equipment beginning with the first day of setup and the last day of tear down. The use of parking is far less than other major events of this size and scale. Due to the vast availability of parking within the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington State Beach, including approximately 6,200 parking spaces in the immediate Project vicinity, this use of parking (approximately 8 percent of total available public access parking) has not had a significant impact on access and is not anticipated to have any future impacts. In addition, patrons arriving by vehicle are permitted to park within the Huntington Beach public parking areas, where the Applicant coordinates with the City to reserve parking spaces dedicated to Airshow attendees. All other details regarding parking will be governed by a future agreement between the City and the Applicant.

Response to Comment 15-4
According to the California Coastal Commission, the streets in question are within the Coastal Zone Boundary, where local jurisdictions are prohibited from restricting on street parking. The CCC has historically denied requests for residential permit parking programs within the Coastal Zone.

Refer to Response to Comment 15-3.

Response to Comment 15-5
The Applicant and City will continue to coordinate as applicable with neighboring jurisdictions that may be impacted with increases of vehicles along Pacific Coast Highway and surrounding streets.

Refer to Response to Comment 1-3, 5-3, and 15-3.

The City of Costa Mesa just learned about the public review period for the Huntington Beach Airshow Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from a community member last Friday. Assistant Director Scott Drapkin submitted a letter dated March 12, 2024 on behalf of the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, but subsequently did not receive any communication regarding the Notice of Availability for the DEIR public review p eriod. As such, the City has been unaware that the DEIR was available for public review.

The City of Costa Mesa respectfully requests an extension o f the public review period for
at least 15 days for us to assess whether the DEIR addressed the comments presented in the City’s letter of March 12, 2024.

In an effort
preserve the City’s ability to review the DEIR, the City provides the following preliminary questions and comments . The City would like to reserve the right to provide additional comments or amend the following comments, if the time extension is granted.

City of Costa Mesa Preliminary Comments on the DEIR
1) Notiﬁcation.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15087 indicates that notices shall be mailed to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing.

Please include in your response and the Final Environmental Impact Report the names and addresses of all individuals who have requested such notice. As noted above, the City of Costa Mesa submitted a letter in response to the Notice of Preparation, but did not receive notiﬁcation that the DEIR was available for review.

Comment Letter 16
16-1
16-2

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
2 | Page
2) Consultations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15086(4) indicates that the lead agency shall consult with and request comments on the draft EIR from any city or county which borders on a city or count y within which the project is locat ed. The City of Costa Mesa borders Huntington Beach to the east. The City of Costa Mesa did not receive requests for consultation nor did we receive notiﬁcation of the DEIR requesting comments. We respectfully request an extension of the public review period to allow compliance with CEQA and opportunity for consultation. 3) D eﬁcient
Study Area. As indicated in Section 2.1 and Figure 2 -3, aircraft will ﬂy overhead within a temporary ﬂight restriction (TFR) airspace, which is ﬁ ve nautical mile radius from the Airshow Performance Area. A portion of the City of Costa Mesa is within the TFR airspace . Much of the DEIR focuses on the Airshow Performance Area as the study area for the DEIR, however, the impacts are more applicable to the entire TFR. The TFR should be the study area for the DEIR. 4) B iologi
cal Resources. The boundary for the Biological Study Area (BSA) is co - terminus with a planned ﬂight path and does not identify biologically-sensitive areas.

However, Section 2.1 indicates that many of the aircraft maneuvers, particularly for the military (whose aircraft are also the loudest) spill out into the TFR and Section 2.6.4 states that ﬂight paths are subject to change . To adequate analyze impacts on biological resources, the BSA should encompass the entire TFR airspace to assess all possible impacts to biological areas and habitats. It is not reasonable to assume that the BSA has adequately studied impacts to biologically-sensitive areas, when the BSA mirrors the ﬂights paths that are subject to change and spillover.

The City of Costa Mesa previously identiﬁed several biologically sensitive areas in Fairview Park. Speciﬁcally, in Fairview Park, there are two Nationally Registered Cultural Resource Historic Sites and ﬁve distinct habitat ecosystems, adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Although identiﬁed during the scoping process, Fairview Park has not been included in the BSA. The City requests that the BSA be expanded to the footprint of the TFR, which is where ﬂight activity will occur during the duration of the airshow. At a minimum, the City requests that the BSA be expanded to include all open spaces within the TFR, including but not limited to Fairview Park, the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Talbert Regional Park, and Canyon Park. 5) F
uel Du
mps. Page 3.2-44 - Fuel Dump - of the DEIR indicates that if jettisoned at a high enough altitude in above freezing temperature, the evaporation rate calculations show that over 90% will evaporate before reaching the ground. 16-3
16-4
16-5
16-6
I

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
3 | Page
a. The stated altitudes in the TFR are “at or below” 500 feet. In aviation, high altitude is deﬁned as above 25,000 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use “high altitude” as a threshold in a TFR airspace associated with an airshow as it does not lead to conclusions that are relevant to the Project circumstances.
b. P
lease e
xplain the impacts from the 10% (from high altitude) of fuel that does not evaporate.
c. P lease rev
ise the analysis of fuel dump analysis to reﬂect the realistic altitudes within the TFR during an airshow.
d. S ince li
kely receptors in a fuel dump range from birds to marine mammals and ﬁsh, please include mitigation for the Project if this happens, such as a remediation or clean fee. Simply concluding that it is not likely to happen is not a suitable conclusion or mitigation.
6) Hazar ds and
Hazardous Materials. There can be accidents at airshows. In the past 10 years, there have been a range of 8 -12 accidents per year at airshows. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_21 st_century) The DEIR does not analyze any scenario for which aircraft ﬂying over the City of Costa Mesa encounter an accident or incident , such as a mid -air collision, collision with ground, mechanical failure, or fuel dump. Please include an analysis of possible hazards from aircraft ﬂight in the TFR over the City of Costa Mesa, including potential hazards, cleanup, and emergency response.
7) D
eﬁcient
N
oise Analysis. Section 3.4 indicates that the Noise analysis focuses on aircraft noise associated with the ﬂyovers during the 2023 Airshow, noise from ampliﬁed speakers, and trafﬁc noise from an increase in vehicle trips to the Project.

The Noise Analysis only analyzes locations within the City of Huntington Beach and does not include locations within the City of Costa Mesa where noise from aircraft will likely be heard (within the TFR) . Please expand the noise analysis to include areas within the City of Costa Mesa impacted by aircraft noise.

Under Section 3.4.6.1, Impact 3.4-1 indicates that “The Project would result i n a
signiﬁcant impact if it would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.” [emphasis added.] The Noise Analysis indicates that Airshow activity will generally exceed noise standards and refers to the Huntington Beach Noise 16-6
(cont.)
16-7
16-8

Lastly, there is evidence in Figures 2 to 9 contained within the Aviation Noise Technical Report (ANTR) that identiﬁes areas within the City of Costa Mesa where aircraft from the airshow causes conditions that exceed the City of Costa Mesa’s Noise Ordinance.

These areas should be analyzed in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa’s Noise Ordinance, available at the following weblink: https://ecode360.com/42619123 Please identify mitigation measures to address these impacts. 8) A ircraft N
oise. T
he Aviation Noise Technical Report (ANTR) endeavors to study a selection of aircraft including “seven (7) ﬁxed wing and rotor aircraft that are anticipated to create the most noise exposure over the course of the Airshow”. Table 1 – Model Noise Results then displays the noise level for each individual aircraft type in ﬂight . The analysis fails to consider the well-known and documented airshow components, such as multiple aircraft events like ﬂight demonstration teams and heritage ﬂights. For example, the F/A-18 Super Hornets ﬂown by the Blue Angels are rated as the second loudest aircraft (96.3 dB) in the ANTR, but their formations can include four to six aircraft ﬂying simultaneously. The EIR should explain how this noise level was accounted for.
9) A
ircraft
Noise Data. Page 3.4-14 of the DEIR indicates that measurement data for the duration of the 2023 Airshow was recorded in Appendix E. We were unable to locate the actual measurement data in Appendix E. Table 1 in Appendix E indicated noise level from individual aircr aft, but that does not correspond to some of the observations from the 2023 Airshow in Section 3.4. Since Appendix E is the basis for the Noise Analysis, the ability to review the data is critical to verify the Noise Analysis. 10) T
ranspor tati
on. Section 2.6.6 of the Project indicates that State Route 55 to Paciﬁc Coast Highway is one of the primary vehicular travel corridors to access the Show Center area. State Route 55 runs through Costa Mesa . However, the transportation analysis in Section 3.5 of the DEIR is limited to the boundary of Huntington Beach.

Given that the travelers to and from the airshow are expected to generate additional volume on the City of Costa Mesa’s transportation infrastructure, provide an analysis 16-8
(cont.)
16-9
16-10
16-11

The City of Costa Mesa thanks the City of Huntington Beach for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to fully analyze and disclose environmental impacts that the Pacific Airshow may have on the City of Costa Mesa. As indicated earlier, the City of Costa Mesa would appreciate an extension of time for the public review period in order to more thoroughly review the DEIR and consult with Huntington Beach on this Project.

Sincerely,
Carrie Tai, AICP
Economic and Development Services Director
City of Costa Mesa
CC:

M
ayor John
Stephens
Councilmember Arlis Reynolds
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager
Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager
Alma Reyes, Deputy City Manager
Scott Drapkin, Assistant Director, Development Services Attachments – March 12, 2024 Scoping Letter
16-11
(cont.)
16-12
16-13
1 I
March 12, 2024
City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

CITY OF COSTA MESA
P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE• CALIFORNIA 92628-1200

ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Attn: Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Subject: City of Costa Mesa Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project Mr. Hyland,
The City of Costa Mesa has reviewed the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project. Except during the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020, this event has been held annually since 2016. And, because of our proximity, the City of Costa Mesa is familiar with the annual airshow event.

Additionally, the nature of the airshow and environment in which it occurs is such that the extent of its activities (for example, flybys and aerial acrobatics) must begin and end at destinations located beyond the show center area. Airplanes must be staged at destinations miles away from the viewing area and flight patterns occurring as part of the show often result in overflights within the limits of the City of Costa Mesa that would not otherwise occur. Costa Mesa's adjacency to Huntington Beach, the air show flight patterns, and potential circulation issues give rise to several environmental concerns that have the potential to impact the City of Costa Mesa and its residents. These concerns, which requires addressing in the project's environmental impact report (EIR), include, but are not limited to:

1. Biological Resources
Fairview Park in the City of Costa Mesa is located between John Wayne Airport and the event space. Fairview Park is about 208 acres and consists of 195 acres of natural open space and 13 acres of manicured landscape. With the natural open space, there are two Nationally Registered Cultural Resource Historic Sites and five distinct habitat ecosystems, which are home to many rare and endangered plant and animal species. The park is also adjacent to the Santa Ana River.

Building Division 714.754.5273 • Community Improvement Division 714.754.5638 Housing & Community Development 714.754.4870 • Planning Division 714.754.5245 www.costamesaca.gov
16-14

The City of Costa Mesa appreciates that the Initial Study acknowledges that two of the six impact areas are likely to have a potentially significant impact and will be studied in the project's EIR. However, we also believe that the Initial Study's determination of no impact upon riparian habitats or other natural communities and wetlands is not accurate. We request that the project EIR's scope include additionally analysis of potential impacts upon these two topic areas given the proximity of Fairview Park, its habitat, its sensitive species, and on-site wetlands to the event and location under or near to overflight routes.

2. Noise
The Initial Study indicates that noise impacts are subject to the noise standards of the City of Huntington Beach's Noise Ordinance. However, noise impacts that occur within Costa Mesa's city limits should be evaluated against the standards of Costa Mesa's Noise Ordinance to determine if an impact is present or not. Additionally, the noise analysis should assess the impact of flyover noise upon flora and fauna species located at Fairview Park.

3. Transportation
A substantial number of people will utilize freeways and roadways located in the City of Costa Mesa to attend the airshow in Huntington Beach. These will include the 405 freeway, the 55 freeway, the 73 toll road, and various north-south and east-west surface roads that provide access across Costa Mesa connecting it with Huntington Beach.

The concentrated duration of this event during specific hours of each day during the several day event will intensify demand on our roadways and will likely lead to further congestion above normal levels. This congestion will cause vehicle delays and contribute more emissions into the air.

The City of Costa Mesa requests that a full assessment of these impacts be included in a project traffic study to assess the project's contribution and to identify alternative transportation modes, including the use of shuttles or similar mass transit options to relieve congest while facilitating the movement of large numbers of people (over 700,000 total people in the past) into and out of the event center multiple times a day for several consecutive days.

4. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Initial Study acknowledges that John Wayne Airport will be used as a staging area for some of the aircraft used during the airshow. John Wayne Airport is adjacent to the City of Costa Mesa. We appreciate that the project's Initial Study acknowledges that there could be a potentially significant impact related to criteria pollutants and that this concern will be studied in the EIR.
16-14
(cont.)

However, we believe that the Initial Study improperly concludes that there will be a less than significant impact in the areas of 1) exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and 2) other adverse emissions that may affect a substantial number of people.

As such, the City of Costa Mesa requests that the project EIR also fully study these concerns to ensure that flyovers from aircraft staged at John Wayne Airport and those that will overfly Costa Mesa airspace during their performance are assessed and disclosed to the public and decision makers.

Similarly, the project also needs to fully assess and disclose potential impacts upon greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle travel related to ingress and egress for equipment, concessions, attendance on each day of the event; including the emissions generated by each of the aircraft used each day of the event.

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The City of Costa Mesa believes that all topic areas related to hazards and hazardous materials need to be disclosed in the project's EIR. This event will result in aircraft overflights of portions of the City of Costa Mesa that have homes, businesses, and other recreation areas located on the ground below. The nature of emissions from high performance aircraft upon persons on the ground below should be disclosed and understood to determine what, if any, short-term or long-term potential impacts may result. Additionally, the project EIR should make an attempt to ascertain the hazard potential associated with an unexpected mid-air collision or mechanical failure, including identifying the fallout zone, to people and property between the venue and John Wayne Airport and along the performer's flight pattern.

6. Tribal Cultural Resources
Fairview Park is home to an important archaeological site (4-ORA-58) for the protection of Costa Mesa's indigenous heritage containing what is believed to be one of the largest known Native American sites in the region that was occupied for at least 3,000 years. As it is currently written, the Initial Study fails to identify this resource that is present very close to the event center and certainly under the flight patterns that will occur throughout the week of the airshow. Unless and until archaeological site (4-ORA-58) is discussed in the Initial Study and the project EIR, the analysis and its conclusions are considered incomplete. Please amend the Initial Study to acknowledge the presence of this cultural resource and provide analysis to whether or not there may be a direct or indirect impact. 16-14
(cont.)

7. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Based on the above comments, the mandatory findings of significance should be updated but still reflect a potentially significant environmental impact resulting in the need to prepare a thorough and complete project level EIR.

Again, Costa Mesa thanks the City of Huntington Beach for this opportunity to offer our suggestions on the Initial Study including the need for additional analysis to properly assess and fully disclose the potential impacts of, mitigation measures for, and alternatives to the impacts that the Pacific Airshow may have
upon the City of Costa Mesa and its residents and businesses.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Scott Drapkin
Assistant Director of Development Services
(714) 754-5278 or by email: [email protected] cc: City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn: Hayden Beckman
ESA
420 Exchange, Suite 260
Irvine, CA 92602
Attn: Brian Allee, Project Manager
16-14
(cont.)

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-245 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 16: City of Costa Mesa
Response to Comment 16-1
The City of Costa Mesa is included in the City of Huntington Beach’s interested parties list and, as such, was notified of release of the Pacific Airshow Draft EIR. The City of Costa Mesa submitted a letter to the City of Huntington Beach on April 7, 2025, providing initial comments on the Draft EIR and also requesting a 15-day extension to prepare additional comments. In response, the City of Huntington Beach sent an email to Carrie Tai, AICP, Director, City of Costa Mesa, on April 9, 2025, providing the requested 15-day extension until April 21, 2025, to receive additional comments. The City of Huntington Beach never received a second comment letter or a further response after the extension.

In addition, the City of Costa Mesa submitted a comment letter on the Notice of Preparation of the Pacific Airshow Draft EIR on March 12, 2024, which was provided after the Notice of Preparation public review deadline of March 4, 2024; nonetheless, the City of Huntington Beach did consider the comments provided when preparing the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 16-2
Refer to Response to Comment 16-1 in terms of the City of Costa Mesa’s notification of the Pacific Airshow Draft EIR. The City of Huntington Beach made its best attempt to notify and grant extension to the City of Costa Mesa. The City of Huntington Beach chooses not to include the names and addresses of organizations and people who have previously requested notification regarding the Pacific Airshow Project. Any interested party may request the information through a Public Records Act Request.

Response to Comment 16-3
Please refer to Response to Comments 16-1 and 16-2.

Response to Comment 16-4
As described in the Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.1, Project Location, page 2-1, of the Draft EIR, the Show Center Area is the location where primary on-the-ground events and activities of the Airshow take place. Locally, the approximate boundaries of the Show Center Area from northwest to southeast are 7th Street and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1 or SR- 1) to Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 or SR-39) and Pacific Coast Highway to the Pacific Ocean including a portion of the Huntington Beach Pier landward of the State Lands Commission mean high tide line. The Airshow Performance Area, the primary area for civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics, is located adjacent to the Show Center Area over the Pacific Ocean with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 feet from the shoreline and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 feet. A majority of the civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics occur within approximately 500 and 1,500 feet from the shoreline. However, many of the aircraft maneuvers, particularly for the military, also occur into the temporary flight restriction (TFR). The TFR, which is issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the Airshow, is a five nautical mile (NM) ring centered on the center of the Airshow’s aerobatic box. The restricted airspace within the ring extends from the surface to 15,000 feet above mean Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-246 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

sea level (MSL). Neither the Applicant (the Airshow operator) nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by terminal radar approach control (TRACON)16, and pilot training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams. While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the pilot in charge (PIC) subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities. The Show Center Area and Airshow Performance Area collectively comprise of the Project Site.

Response to Comment 16-5
As discussed under Response to Comment 16-4, the TFR spans a 5 nautical mile radius and extends from the surface up to 15,000 feet MSL. This restriction is specifically designed to keep commercial and general aviation aircraft out of the designated Airshow airspace. By doing so, the TFR allows Airshow participants to safely reposition their aircraft within the restricted airspace for their performances, eliminating the risk of conflicts with unauthorized aircraft. At all times, the FAA, the Applicant, and pilots are committed to the safe operation of aircraft. While the pilot has ultimate control of the aircraft while in flight, the FAA has the primary role of ensuring safe and efficient use of the National Airspace System (NAS). While aircraft will adhere to the predetermined flight path as much as possible, there may be instances when a pilot needs to make a different decision while in flight to ensure safety.

As noted in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.2.1 Environmental Setting, pages 3.2-1 and 3.2-2, the proposed flight path and a 500-foot buffer was examined. As such, the biological study area (BSA) does not include the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, or Canyon Park. Additionally, biological monitoring and surveys have been conducted prior to and during the 2023 Airshow to identify potential impacts on bird behavior and none were observed. The Draft EIR also determined that the temporarily impacted areas would not significantly inhibit local or regional movement of wildlife to, from, or within Frank and Joan Randall Preserve, Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park, or Canyon Park. Neither the Applicant nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude). The determination of flight paths and altitudes are dictated predominantly by ingress and egress routes to/from the Airshow Performance Area, required vertical and horizontal separation from other air traffic as directed by TRACON, and prior pilot training related to highly choreographed Airshow sequences by military display teams.

As required by FAA regulations, a PIC is directly responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft and safety of each flight, including any/all passengers and crew. A PIC is the final authority of their aircraft’s operation and may deviate from any regulation in 14 CFR, Part 91, Subpart A (General) and Subpart B (Flight Rules) as required to maintain flight safety. While the

16 TRACON is an FAA air traffic control facility using radar and air/ground communications to provide approach control services to aircraft arriving, departing, or transiting the airspace controlled by the facility.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-247 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities.

Response to Comment 16-6
According to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, pages 3.2-44 and 3.2-45 of the Draft EIR, there is a low probability potential for an emergency fuel dump from aircraft in the air for safety reasons. Typically, most of the fuel that is released turns into vapor within a few minutes. If jettisoned at a high enough altitude in above freezing temperature, evaporation rate calculations show that over 90 percent will evaporate before reaching the ground. The fuel vapors typically rapidly dissipate and diffuse in the atmosphere. A typical F/A-18 super hornet has a fuel capacity of approximately 2,000 gallons and might require release of approximately half of that for emergency reasons, which would result in a hypothetical fuel dump of approximately 1,000 gallons of which 100 gallons may reach the nearshore/offshore area of the Huntington Beach area. This would be considered a minor discharge and potentially result in a light surface sheen that would quickly evaporate. It is important to note that these same risks exist with all aviation overflights, not just those from the Airshow, including daily commercial flights that currently occur within the Project area. In the very unlikely event that a fuel dump should occur, the Applicant will work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to coordinate any potential response, clean up, and messaging efforts.

Response to Comment 16-7
Huntington Beach Police are the lead public safety agency for the event. They serve as a conduit to coordinate significant mutual aid and planning with all other public safety agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security, Orange County Intelligence Assessment Center (OCIAC), Orange County Sheriffs, U.S. Coast Guard, FAA, TRACON, Anaheim Police, Long Beach Fire, and many other agencies. In the very unlikely event of an accident or emergency such as a mid-air collision, collision with ground, mechanical failure, or fuel dump, the Applicant will work closely with the applicable public safety agencies and emergency personnel to coordinate any potential emergency response and messaging efforts.

Response to Comment 16-8
The City of Huntington Beach acknowledges the City of Costa Mesa’s concerns regarding noise impacts from aircraft operations associated with the Airshow. Based on data from the 2023 event and the Aviation Noise Technical Report (ANTR), aircraft noise may temporarily exceed Costa Mesa’s established limits by up to 50 dB, including in noise-sensitive areas, but are expected to be brief and not sustained. Aircraft operations during the Airshow are governed by FAA regulations, with flight paths and altitudes determined by ingress/egress routes, air traffic separation requirements, and pre-established choreography for safety. While the Applicant can influence performance timing and sequencing, actual flight decisions are made by the PIC in coordination with FAA radar facilities. Aircraft are directed to remain over water whenever operationally feasible to reduce inland noise exposure; however, neither the Applicant nor the Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-248 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

City of Huntington Beach can mandate specific flight paths or altitudes. For further detail, refer to Master Response A.

Response to Comment 16-9
The Aviation Noise Technical Report (ANTR) was designed to identify the maximum potential extent of noise exposure from individual aircraft types anticipated during the Airshow. While Table 1 presents modeled noise levels for seven representative aircraft, the analysis does not reflect cumulative noise from multi-aircraft formations such as flight demonstrations. This is because precise modeling of cumulative noise effects would require precise data on flight track locations, altitudes, and timing for each aircraft in formation, and this information is not available prior to the event due to the dynamic nature of airshow choreography and FAA-controlled airspace. However, aircraft noise from multiple sources would be additive in the same way as any other noise source with multiple events occurring at the same time. For instance, should multiple flights of the same aircraft occur during an event, the doubling of aircrafts would result in a 3 dBA increase.

The ANTR complements the monitored data collected during the 2023 Airshow through on-site noise monitoring. The measurements provide a “real-world” representation of actual noise exposure experienced by surrounding communities, including during multi-aircraft performances.

The combination of modeled and monitored data ensures that the analysis reflects both theoretical maximums and observed conditions, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of potential noise impacts.

Response to Comment 16-10
The most recent Noise Monitoring Technical Report dated December 2023, which contains the measurement data collected during the 2023 Airshow, was inadvertently omitted from Appendix E, of the Draft EIR. A previous version of the Noise Monitoring Technical Report dated September 2023 was included in the Draft EIR. While Table 1 in Appendix E from the September 2023 Noise Monitoring Technical Report presents modeled noise levels for individual aircraft, it does not reflect the full scope of observed conditions that were collected during the 2023 Airshow and were included in the analysis provided in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR. To address this, the Noise Monitoring Technical Report dated December 2023, including all raw measurement data collected during the 2023 event, has been included in Chapter 4, Corrections and Additions. The replacement of the most recent Noise Monitoring Technical Report does not alter the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR..

Response to Comment 16-11
Section 2.6.6 of the Draft EIR describes “State Route 55 (SR-55) to Pacific Coast Highway” as one of the primary vehicular travel corridors potentially used by attendees to access the Airshow, without prediction of the level of usage. Traffic count data was collected at the three access points that connect Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach during the 2023 Airshow: Adams Avenue (Location C), Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street (Location D), and Pacific Coast Highway (Location J); refer to Figure 3.5-1, Map of Daily Vehicle County Locations, in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-249 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Table 3-1 below summarizes the daily traffic volumes at the three access point locations (C, D, & J) on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday without and with the Project.

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY OF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT THE THREE ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS Location ID
Fri
Non-Airshow
Sat
Non-Airshow
Sun
Non-Airshow
Fri
Airshow
Sat
Airshow
Sun
Airshow
C – Adams Ave 15,856 14,162 9,931 16,746 15,456 12,958
D – Hamilton Ave/ Victoria St 31,607 28,664 23,086 32,178 29,729 26,515 J – Pacific Coast Highway 43,524 38,959 34,124 42,872 35,262 32,436 Total 90,987 81,785 67,141 91,796 80,447 71,909

Table 3-2 below provides the change in daily volumes and percentage difference without and with the Project.

TABLE 3-2

CHANGE IN DAILY VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT AT THE THREE ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS Location ID
Fri Volume
Change
Sat Volume
Change
Sun Volume
Change
Fri %
Change
Sat %
Change
Sun %
Change
C – Adams Ave 890 1,294 3,027 5.6% 9.1% 30.5%
D – Hamilton Ave/ Victoria St 571 1,065 3,429 1.8% 3.7% 14.9% J – Pacific Coast Highway (652) (3,697) (1,688) -1.5% -9.5% -4.9% Total 809 (1,338) 4,768 0.9% -1.6% 7.1%

The daily traffic volume along PCH during the Airshow weekend was lower than that of the non- Airshow (baseline) weekend. This does not indicate that no Project-related traffic used PCH, but rather the net result was a reduction in traffic, likely due to some reduction in trips unrelated to the Project.

While the daily total volume increased at locations C and D during the Airshow, the magnitude of change is comparable to other special events in the region which cause similar fluctuations in traffic volumes.

For example, Table 3-3 below compares the daily traffic volumes during non-Orange County Fair (OC Fair) weekends (baseline) and weekends during the OC Fair using Streetlight, a form of anonymized location-based data sourced from cell phones and GPS units on individual vehicles.

Traffic volume at the same three locations (C, D, and J) without the Fair, consisting of the average daily values between 6/19/2024 to 7/18/2024, was compared with weekends during the OC Fair, represented by the average daily values between 7/19/2024 to 8/18/2024.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-250 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

TABLE 3-3

DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES DURING NON-ORANGE COUNTY FAIR (OC FAIR) WEEKENDS (BASELINE) AND

OC FAIR WEEKENDS AT THE THREE ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS
Location ID
Average Fri
Non-OC Fair
Average Sat
Non-OC Fair
Average Sun
Non-OC Fair
Average
Fri OC Fair
Average
Sat OC Fair
Average
Sun OC Fair
C – Adams Ave 38,068 32,242 22,967 39,748 34,529 27,133 D – Hamilton Ave/ Victoria St 34,469 29,528 22,909 33,273 29,813 25,472 J – Pacific Coast Highway 54,574 49,047 37,788 51,442 46,888 39,796 Total 127,111 110,817 83,664 124,463 111,230 92,401

Table 3-4 below summarizes the change in total daily volume and the percentage difference between baseline and OC Fair activities.

TABLE 3-4

CHANGE IN TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE DURING NON-OC FAIR AND

OC FAIR WEEKENDS AT THE THREE ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS
Location ID
Fri Volume
Change
Sat Volume
Change
Sun Volume
Change
Fri %
Change
Sat %
Change
Sun %
Change
C – Adams Ave 1,680 2,287 4,166 4.4% 7.1% 18.1%
D – Hamilton Ave/ Victoria St (1,196) 285 2,563 -3.5% 1.0% 11.2% J – Pacific Coast Highway (3,132) (2,159) 2,008 -5.7% -4.4% 5.3% Total (2,648) 413 8,737 -2.1% 0.4% 10.4%

In summary, the level of increase from the Project was modest (7.1 percent) over the course of the three-day (1 weekend) event and less than what is experienced by the OC Fair (10.4 percent) over 30 days (5 weekends) that the OC Fair is active.

Response to Comment 16-12
The City of Costa Mesa is included in the City of Huntington Beach’s interested parties list and will receive notification of the availability of any future documents associated with the Project, along with any public meetings and public hearings.

Response to Comment 16-13
Please refer to Response to Comments 16-1 and 16-2.

Response to Comment 16-14
The City of Costa Mesa’s comment letter dated March 12, 2024, provides comments on the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, this Response to Comments document responds to comments that were specifically raised on the Draft EIR in the City’s comment letter dated April 7, 2025, rather than the Notice of Preparation comment letter; however, the comments provided on the Notice of Preparation were considered when preparing the Draft EIR.

The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 4-1 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

CHAPTER 4
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
This chapter contains a compilation of revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR either in response to a comment or as initiated by the City. Some of the staff-initiated text changes are made in reflect additional information provided by the Applicant as part of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) process for the Pacific Airshow. The text changes made in responses to comments and the staff-initiated text changes do not alter the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR.

All revisions are previously introduced in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR but are summarized here for convenience of the reader. Where the responses indicate additions or deletions to the text of the Draft EIR, additions are indicated in underline and deletions in strikeout.

4.1 Text Changes Made in Responses to Comments
Chapter 2, Project Description
Section 2.6.4, Airport Origin, Airshow Flight Paths, and Airshow Performance Duration
Pages 2-10 and 2-11
The Airshow airport origins, Airshow flight paths, and Airshow performance durations are subject to change each year for the Airshow. As discussed above, future Airshows are anticipated to be held annually for three (3) days to up to five (5) days, generally Friday through Sunday or up to Wednesday through Sunday, with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. A majority of the aircraft originate from, but are not limited to, the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airfield (KSLI) located in Los Alamitos, California (approximately 12 aircraft in 2023) and John Wayne Airport (SNA) located in Santa Ana, California (approximately 9 aircraft in 2023). Other airports to originate one to two aircraft are March Air Reserve Base (RIV) located Riverside County (approximately 2 aircraft for 2023), Fullerton Municipal Airport (FUL) located in Fullerton, California (1 aircraft for 2023), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) located in Los Angeles, California (1 aircraft for 2023), San Diego International Airport (SAN) located in San Diego, California (0 aircraft for 2023), Channel Islands Air National Guard Station located at Port Hueneme, California (1 aircraft for 2023), and Edwards Air Force Base (EDW) located in Kern County (1 aircraft for 2023).

Many of the aircraft, particularly the larger ones, hold out over the water and only make a few passes in front of the Show Center Area before returning to their origin airports. Typically, the duration of the aircraft over the Show Center Area ranges between approximately two minutes to up to 45 minutes.

Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 4-2 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft currently fly over the BCER and helicopters regularly land at a helipad located within the BCER. However, the Project could increase the amount of air traffic that occurs over the BCER. The Applicant will provide mandatory in-person or virtual daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all participating pilots about the location, nature, and sensitivity of the BCER and will request avoidance of both overflights and streamer drops over this area. In addition, the Applicant will advise Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) and the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airfield Tower on the location, nature, and sensitivity of the BCER and will request avoidance of overflights in this area. The Applicant will work with Southern California TRACON to establish routes in/out of the Airshow airspace and supporting airfields to avoid overflight of the BCER. When overflights of the BCER cannot be avoided, the Applicant will request that such overflights occur at 1,000 feet above ground level or above. While it is the desire of the Applicant to avoid incursions over the BCER, it is important to note that the Applicant possesses no authority to restrict such activities. Because pilots could be instructed by the to fly over the BCER, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project, at least one day prior to the Airshow as well as during the operation of the Airshow to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no Airshow-related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas. The Airshow airport origins, Airshow flight paths, and Airshow performance durations are subject to change each year for the Airshow.

As required by FAA regulations, a pilot in command (PIC) is directly responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft and safety of each flight, including any/all passengers and crew. A PIC is the final authority of their aircraft’s operation and may deviate from any regulation in 14 CFR, Part 91, Subpart A (General) and Subpart B (Flight Rules) as required to maintain safety of flight.

While the Applicant can influence the sequence and timing of each performer’s display in the overall Airshow lineups, all decisions made during a flight sequence, including the flight paths and altitudes, are individual to the PIC subject to safety of flight considerations and other factors as communicated to the pilot from the appropriate supporting radar facilities.

Because pilots could be instructed by the air traffic control (ATC) to fly over the BCER due to these factors above, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no Airshow- related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas. Further, future Airshow and applicable Airshow activities (i.e., Airshow set up and site breakdown, aircraft flight familiarization and Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 4-3 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

flight practice flyovers will not begin prior to September 15 each Airshow year. The specific monitoring efforts will include the following:
• A qualified biologist (familiar with nesting shorebirds and possessing all necessary permits) will conduct a preactivity survey of the areas with documented sensitive biological resources, including the BCER, areas known to support historic or existing state and/or federally listed species, such as the western snowy plover and California least tern, and the Show Center Area. These surveys will occur one day before any pre-Airshow activities and continue through every day of pre-Airshow and Airshow activities to observe baseline avian behavior and the effects of the Airshow on bird behavior.
• The qualified biological monitor will be present in areas with documented sensitive biological resources, including the BCER, areas known to support historic or existing state and/or federally listed species, such as the western snowy plover and California least tern, and the Show Center Area during the Airshow to monitor bird activity and reactions during the event.
• If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish a 300-foot buffer for CEQA- or ESA- listed species and a 500-foot buffer for Fully Protected species. The buffer shall be between the Airshow activities, including presence of spectators, and the nest site. The buffer shall be delineated with construction fence, and signs shall be posted along the fence informing the public of the sensitive nature of the nesting site and indicating the area shall not be entered. • Trash and debris in the vicinity of nest sites or other sensitive habitats shall be removed by or at the discretion of the qualified biologist.
• During the 2023 Airshow, no noticeable change in avian behavior was observed and no California least tern or western snowy plover were observed. If a noticeable change in behavior (i.e., flushing or flying off) by state and/or federally listed species (e.g., western snowy plover, California least tern, and/or Belding’s savannah sparrow) is observed by the biological monitor resulting from flyovers during future Airshows, the monitor will consult with the City and the Applicant to propose an increase in flight elevation, recognizing that the FAA, flight controllers, and the pilots ultimately determine flight elevations. • Following the conclusion of the annual Airshow, the biological monitor will prepare a post- Airshow report to: (1) document observations, including reporting any relevant information to the CNDDB website and/or CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (although the focus of the monitoring efforts is on avian species); (2) identify measures that were taken, as needed, to avoid potential impacts to nesting or sensitive species; and (3) provide recommendations for future Airshows. The report will be made available to the public on the City’s website.

Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 4-4 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

To ensure enforceability of the biological monitoring efforts, this Project Description Feature-1 will be voluntarily included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). In summary, the following will occur to ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds remain less than significant:
• Pre-airshow activities would occur at least one week beyond the end of the identified nesting season for the California least tern and the western snowy plover and well beyond the end of the identified nesting season for the light-footed Ridgway’s rail and general avian species. • Monitoring efforts will be conducted before and during the Airshow to survey for nests and provide measures to avoid potential impacts.
• Daily briefings have and will continue to occur, although the outcome of those briefings cannot be guaranteed.

Section 2.6.6, Access, Ingress/Egress, Road Closures, and Parking Pages 2-13 and 2-14

2.6.6 Vehicular Access, Ingress/Egress, Road Closures, and Parking, and Public Access The primary vehicular travel corridors to access the Show Center Area are from Interstate 405 (I- 405) to either Beach Boulevard, Magnolia Street, Brookhurst Street, or Goldenwest Street; State Route 55 (SR-55) to Pacific Coast Highway; or Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway.

Based on previous Airshows, temporary changes to vehicular ingress and egress of the Airshow area are anticipated to result from the following restrictions: establishment of a staging area for emergency response personnel between the 200-300 block of southbound 1 st Street; installation of
staging equipment for the Airshow on Main Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway; and temporary use of an auxiliary lane to facilitate exiting vehicles from the public parking lots on southbound Pacific Coast Highway approximately 300 feet before the intersection at Beach Boulevard. Future Airshows do not propose substantial or permanent changes to the existing circulation elements, or temporary road closures, which would affect transit vehicles, automobiles, bicycles, or pedestrians beyond what has occurred for historic Airshows.

Patrons arriving by vehicle are permitted to park within the Huntington Beach public parking areas, where the Applicant coordinates with the City to reserve parking spaces dedicated to Airshow attendees. Access to the public parking lots adjacent to the Show Center Area are located along Pacific Coast Highway at the intersection of 6 th Street, 1st Street, Huntington Street,
Beach Boulevard, and a right-in-right out driveway mid-block between Main Street and 1st Street.

Additional public parking southeast of the Show Center Area can be accessed at Newland Street, Magnolia Street, and Brookhurst Street. On-street parking in the general vicinity is allowed except where the temporary restrictions are implemented along Pacific Coast Highway, along with other streets with temporary closures as described above. The Applicant encourages the use of ride share, provides ride share pick up/drop off locations, and provides bicycle valet services as part of the Airshow. The Applicant and City could implement future event shuttle programs that would allow attendees to park at designated public locations and ride a free shuttle to the Show Center Area. It is anticipated the City would close the parking entrance located at Huntington Street and Pacific Coast Highway for the Airshow’s exclusive use during event staging of Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 4-5 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

equipment, set up, production on event days, and event breakdown. The Airshow typically utilizes approximately 500 parking spaces beginning with the first day of setup and the last day of tear down. The 500 parking spaces represents approximately 8 percent of the total available public access parking within Huntington City Beach and Huntington State Beach, including over 6,500 available parking spaces in the Project vicinity. The RV camping lot at this location would be reserved for curation and sale of the Airshow’s RV Camping Experience with camping check- in offered on the day prior to the start of the Airshow check-out the Monday following the Airshow. The Airshow would also have 15 RV camping spaces reserved for production use and set up beginning prior to the start of the Airshow up to the Friday following the end of the Airshow. All other details regarding parking will be governed by a future agreement between the City and the Applicant.

During the Airshow and multi-day music festival, and only during event operations and music festival hours, public access would be limited to ticketed holders within the defined areas through the use of fencing and Airshow personnel and security. To ensure public safety during the event’s set up and tear down phases, certain beach areas will have restricted access due to high-risk activities, including the use of heavy machinery, sharp objects, trip hazards, and other potential dangers to the public. Some areas, particularly those near the flight high-risk zones, may be closed off for public safety. These zones are typically marked, and access is restricted to ensure that no pedestrians enter dangerous areas during the Airshow performances and nighttime flyovers during the multi-day music festival. However, public beach areas located beyond the Show Center Area will be open to unrestricted public access for both spectators and beachgoers, as well as boaters within the Pacific Ocean located beyond the Airshow Performance Area. While the Airshow is hosted over Huntington City Beach, the event does not close off the entire beach.

In fact, only approximately 8 percent of the available sandy beach space along the entire Huntington Beach coastline is occupied by the ticketed areas and all other areas of the sandy beach, including substantially all of the other public spaces, are free to view spaces.

Section 2.7, Review and Approvals

Page 2 ends

City Council/Public Financing AuthoritySeptember 2, 2025

City Council/Public Financing Authority
September 2, 2025