Att #4 Final EIR — City Council/Public Financing Authority, September 2, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

THE PACIFIC AIRSHOW HUNTINGTON BEACH
Final Environmental Impact Report

Prepared for August 2025
City of Huntington Beach

THE PACIFIC AIRSHOW HUNTINGTON BEACH
Final Environmental Impact Report

420 Exchange
Suite 260
Irvine, CA 92602
949.753.7001
esassoc.com
Bend
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Rancho Cucamonga
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Barbara
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
Thousand Oaks

D202300046.01
Prepared for August 2025
City of Huntington Beach

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project i ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

CONTENTS
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach
Final Environmental Impact Report
Page
Chapter 1. Introduction to Response to Comments ....................................................... 1-1

1.1 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 CEQA Process................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Public Participation Process .................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Evaluation and Response to Comments ............................................................ 1-3

1.4 Final EIR Certification and Approval .................................................................. 1-3

1.5 Notice of Determination ..................................................................................... 1-3 Chapter 2. List of Commenters ......................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Responses to Comments ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Comments and Responses ............................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Master Responses ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Individual Responses ......................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Response to Written Comments ........................................................................ 3-8 Comment Letter 1: California Coastal Commission ......................................... 3-12 Comment Letter 2: California State Lands Commission .................................. 3-42 Comment Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife ........................ 3-74 Comment Letter 4: California Department of Transportation ........................... 3-82 Comment Letter 5: City of Seal Beach ............................................................. 3-86 Comment Letter 6: Bolsa Chica Conservancy ................................................. 3-92 Comment Letter 7: Amigos de Bolsa Chica ..................................................... 3-96 Comment Letter 8: Coastal Corridor Alliance ................................................ 3-101 Comment Letter 9: Costa Mesa First ............................................................. 3-126 Comment Letter 10: Fairview Park Alliance ................................................... 3-138 Comment Letter 11: Hamilton Biological ........................................................ 3-141 Comment Letter 12: Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP ..................................... 3-212 Comment Letter 13: Schelly Sustarsic ........................................................... 3-221 Comment Letter 14: Susan Perrell ................................................................. 3-227 Comment Letter 15: Kathryn Sinacori ............................................................ 3-235 Comment Letter 16: City of Costa Mesa ........................................................ 3-245 Chapter 4. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR ................................................... 4-1

4.1 Text Changes Made in Responses to Comments.............................................. 4-1 Chapter 2, Project Description ........................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ............... 4-6 Appendices ........................................................................................................ 4-8

4.2 Staff Initiated Text Changes .............................................................................. 4-8 Chapter 2, Project Description ........................................................................... 4-8 Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ............. 4-11 Appendix E. Aviation Noise Technical Report ........................................................... 4-13 Contents
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project ii ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Chapter 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................. 5-1

5.1 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................... 5-1

Tables
Table 2-1 Comment Letters Received ............................................................................... 2-1 Table 3-1 Summary of Daily Traffic Volumes at the Three Access Point Locations ...... 3-249 Table 3-2 Change in Daily Volumes With and Without the Project at the Three Access Point Locations .................................................................................. 3-249 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 ....................................................................................................... 3-250 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 ....................................................................................................... 3-250 Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project .................................................................................. 5-2

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

CHAPTER 1
Introduction to Response to Comments
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The Final EIR incorporates, by reference, the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2024020006) prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (City) for the Pacific Airshow (Airshow or Project), as it was originally published on February 20, 2025, and the following chapters, which include a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions made to the Draft EIR either in response to a comment or as initiated by City staff.

1.1 CEQA Requirements
Before the City may approve the Project, it must certify that the Final EIR: a) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) was presented to the City Council who reviewed and considered it prior to approving the Project; and c) reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specifies that the Final EIR shall consist of the following:
• The Draft EIR or a revision of that draft;
• Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This Final EIR for the Project includes the Draft EIR, as well as Chapter 1 through Chapter 5 of this Responses to Comments document:
• Chapter 1: Introduction to response to comments and a description of the CEQA process. • Chapter 2: A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. • Chapter 3: Written comment letters received on the Draft EIR and written responses to each comment identified in Chapter 2 that raise a significant environmental issue. • Chapter 4: Corrections and additions made to the Draft EIR in response to comments received or initiated by the Lead Agency.
• Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Chapter 1. Introduction to Response to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 1-2 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

1.2 CEQA Process

1.2.1 Public Participation Process
Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping
On February 1, 2024, in accordance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR, and circulated it to the State Clearinghouse, resources agencies, and interested parties. The NOP requested comments on the scope of the Draft EIR. The comment period extended from February 1, 2024, through March 4, 2024, for a period of 33 days. The NOP provided a description of the project location, existing site conditions and surrounding land uses, land use and zoning designations, project background, project characteristics, historic and continued airshow activities and events, new airshow activities anticipated for 2024 through 2034, the airshow performer schedule, airshow performers, airport origin, airshow flight paths, and airshow performance duration, the show center area layout and event viewing, access, ingress/egress, road closures, and parking, airshow set up and site breakdown, event security and evacuation, utilities, and review and approvals.

On February 21, 2024, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9 1, the City held an in-person
public scoping meeting to obtain public comments and suggestions from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. On February 22, 2024, the City held a virtual scoping meeting for public agencies. The in-person public scoping meeting was held at the Huntington Beach City Hall, Lower Level Rooms B-7 and B-8, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The virtual scoping meeting for agencies was held via Zoom. At the scoping meetings, a brief presentation and overview of the Project was provided. After the presentation, oral and written comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR were accepted.

Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR
The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted on the Project Site and with the County Clerk in Orange County on February 20, 2025. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available to the public at the following locations:
• City of Huntington Beach, Planning Division, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. • City of Huntington Beach Central Library, 7111 Talbert Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. • City of Huntington Beach Website:
– https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/departments/community_development/major _projects.php
– https://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/departments/community_development /environmental_reports.php
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 47-day public review from February 20, 2025, through April 7, 2025, as required by Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code.

1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance.

Chapter 1. Introduction to Response to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 1-3 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

1.3 Evaluation and Response to Comments
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the City of Huntington Beach, as the Lead Agency, to respond to comments on significant environmental issues raised by parties that have reviewed the Draft EIR and prepare written responses to those comments. The written responses to commenting public agencies shall be provided at least ten (10) days prior to the certification of the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15088(b)).

1.4 Final EIR Certification and Approval
Prior to considering the Project for approval, the City, as the Lead Agency, will review and consider the information presented in the Final EIR and will certify that the Final EIR:
(a) Has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(b) Has been presented to the City Council as the decision-making body for the Lead Agency, which reviewed and considered it prior to approving the project; and (c) Reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Once the Final EIR is certified, the City Council may proceed to consider project approval (CEQA Guidelines §15090). Prior to approving the Project, the City must make written findings for all significant environmental effects and adopt statements of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in accordance with Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, respectively.

1.5 Notice of Determination
Pursuant to Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Office of Planning and Research and Orange County Clerk within five working days of project approval, if the Project is approved.

Chapter 1. Introduction to Response to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 1-4 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

This page intentionally left blank

The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 2-1 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

CHAPTER 2
List of Commenters
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Pacific Airshow (Airshow or Project) was circulated for public review for 47 days (February 20, 2025, through April 7, 2025) in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a). The City received 16 comment letters during the public review period, which are listed in Table 2-1 and also included in their entirety within Chapter 3. The letters have been marked with brackets that delineate comments pertaining to environmental issues and the information and analysis contained in the Draft EIR. Responses to such comments are provided in Chapter 3.

TABLE 2-1

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
Comment No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment
1 California Coastal Commission April 7, 2025
2 California State Lands Commission April 7, 2025
3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife April 7, 2025 4 California Department of Transportation March 27, 2025 5 City of Seal Beach March 28, 2025
6 Bolsa Chica Conservancy April 7, 2025
7 Amigos de Bolsa Chica March 31, 2025
8 Coastal Corridor Alliance April 7, 2025
9 Costa Mesa First April 7, 2025
10 Fairview Park Alliance March 4, 2024
11 Hamilton Biological March 4, 2024
12 Carstens, Black & Minteer, LLP April 7, 2025
13 Schelly Sustarsic April 5, 2025
14 Susan Perrell March 29, 2025
15 Kathryn Sinacori March 12, 2025
16 City of Costa Mesa April 7, 2025

Chapter 2. List of Commenters
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 2-2 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

This page intentionally left blank
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-1 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

CHAPTER 3
Responses to Comments

3.1 Comments and Responses
This Chapter contains responses to comments on the Draft EIR that were received from government agencies, boards or commissions, organizations, and individuals, in writing.

Consistent with Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of CEQA review (i.e., where a comment does not raise a significant environmental issue, or where it expresses the subjective opinion of the commenter) will be forwarded for consideration to the decision-makers as part of the project approval process; these comments are answered with a general phrase, but no more detailed response is provided. All comments will be considered by the City of Huntington Beach, the Lead Agency, when making a decision on the Project.

Responses are provided as individual responses that respond to specific comments raised and as master responses that respond to broad issues where there were several public comments on the same issue. Master responses are presented first, followed by individual responses. Each comment letter, in numerical order, is included in its entirety, followed by the responses to the individually numbered comments.

In some instances, in response to the comment, the City has electively made additions or deletions to the text of the Draft EIR; additions are included as underlined text and deletions as stricken text (refer to Chapter 4). The revisions do not alter the conclusions in the Draft EIR.

Therefore, the Draft EIR is not required to be recirculated as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

3.2 Master Responses
Master responses (Master Response A and Master Response B) are used to address similar comments that were raised in more than one letter and to provide information in a comprehensive, easily located discussion that clarifies and elaborates upon the analyses in the Draft EIR. The master responses are provided below:

Master Response A: Determination of Flight Paths
As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, on 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 Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-2 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

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. 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.

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.

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.

Many commenters have requested the avoidance of flights over the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER) and that any overflight of the BCER occur at an altitude of 1,000 feet above ground level (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 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.

Master Response B: Previous Agency Concerns About the Airshow Several commentors mentioned a video regarding the “airshow’s past harm to wildlife.” The City is not in possession of a video. However, Pacific Airshow mentioned a video received from Melissa Borde, Reserve Manager for the BCER, during the 2024 Airshow, requesting confirmation that an overflight was at or above 1,000 feet AGL. Pacific Airshow stated they consulted with the Thunderbirds, who confirmed the readings of their calibrated altimeters reflected flights at or above 1,000 feet AGL.

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

There have also been comments in letters submitted by the California State Lands Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Carstens, Black & Minteer indicating there have been significant adverse impacts on wildlife and habitat on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands during previous Airshows; however, specific evidence has not been provided as part of this Draft EIR process. Therefore, these comments are noted and included in the Project record. No response is required because the comment neither raises a specific, significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Master Response C: Timing of the Airshow Relative to Bird Nesting Seasons Section 3.2, Biological Resources, page 3.2-40, of the Draft EIR, indicates the nesting season for sensitive birds is March to September, which is a conservative assumption given that actual nesting seasons are dependent on each species and typically end before the Airshow or the pre- Airshow activities. The Airshow typically occurs during the first, full weekend of October, outside of the nesting season; however, there has been, and could be in the future, an occasion where the Airshow may need to occur during the last day or two of September, leading into the first days of October. Further, as stated in the Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers begin as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow, which means there could be aircraft activity during the last week of September.

The “general” nesting season in southern California is loosely defined as February 1st though August 31st. More specifically, according to a document entitled Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California 2022 (Peter Knapp, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Rachel Woodfield, Merkel & Associates1), the western snowy plover nesting season is from mid-March through mid-September, with the final nest completed by September 10 in 2022. The Belding’s savannah sparrow nesting season is from April through July (Zeiner et al. 1988-19902). According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the nesting season for the California least tern is from mid-April to mid-September (USFWS 20253). Even the earliest pre- Airshow activities would occur at least one week beyond the end of the identified nesting season for the California least tern and western snowy plover, and well beyond the nesting season for the Belding’s savannah sparrow.

Lastly, the light-footed Ridgway’s rail nesting season is mid-March to the end of August,4 which would also occur outside of pre-Airshow and Airshow activities.

As stated in the Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and quoted in Response to Comment 2-4, pre-Airshow activity 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. The biological monitors will assess the project area for nesting species and, if they occur, will identify specific measures to avoid potential impacts, as further described in Master Response D. Worth noting, the biological

1 Microsoft Word - 2022 Bolsa Chica WSP Report.doc, accessed on April 23, 2025. 2 BESS5yr.pdf, accessed on April 23, 2025.
3 California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed on April 23, 2025. 4 Light-footed Ridgway's rail, accessed on April 23, 2025.

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

monitoring that occurred from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm during the first two days of the 2023 Airshow (September 29, 2023, and September 30, 2023) did not detect noise-related impacts to sensitive species during flyovers or the presence of nests. Further, the Applicant has voluntarily agreed that future Airshows and applicable Airshow activities (i.e., Airshow set up and site breakdown, aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers) will not begin prior to September 15 each Airshow year. There are currently routine helicopter flights conducted by the CDFW and the oil rig operators, as well as daily overflights from private and commercial aircraft, both of which also occur during the March to September nesting season, and there is no documented evidence of disturbance to nesting birds.

To ensure enforceability of the biological monitoring efforts, this Project Description Feature (PDF-1) will also be voluntarily included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Because there are no identified and substantiated potentially significant impacts associated with the temporary Airshow activities on biological species, biological monitoring is not required as a mitigation measure.

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. • As further described in Master Response D, monitoring efforts will be conducted before and during the Airshow to survey for nests and provide measures to avoid potential impacts. The biological monitoring efforts are voluntarily included as part of the Project Description because there is no potentially significant environmental impact it would have mitigated; however, to ensure enforceability, biological monitoring will also be included in the MMRP. • Daily briefings have and will continue to occur, although the outcome of those briefings cannot be guaranteed, as further described in Master Response A.

The following text changes will be made to Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the Draft EIR:

To ensure enforceability of the biological monitoring efforts, this Project Description feature 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:
o 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.
o Monitoring efforts will be conducted before and during the Airshow to survey for nests and provide measures to avoid potential impacts.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-5 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

o Daily briefings have and will continue to occur, although the outcome of those briefings cannot be guaranteed.

Master Response D: Biological Monitoring
As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the Draft EIR, “Because pilots could be instructed by the ATC to fly over the BCER, pre-Airshow surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project, at least one day prior to the pre- airshow activities, 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 following text changes will be made to Chapter 2, Project Description, pages 2-10 and 2-11 of the Draft EIR:

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 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 AGL or higher. 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 Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-6 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

regulation in 14 CFR, Part 91, Subpart A (General) and Subpart B (Flight Rules) as required to maintain safety of flight.

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 flight practice flyovers will not begin prior to September 15 each Airshow year. The specific monitoring efforts will include the following:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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. o 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 Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-7 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

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.
o 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.

Results of 2023 Biological Monitoring Efforts
Biological monitoring was conducted for the 2023 Pacific Airshow on September 29, 2023, and September 30, 2023, from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm each day. Monitoring was conducted at the areas within the study area (refer to Figures 3.2-1A to 3.2-1J of the Draft EIR) that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources, as well as the BCER, both parking areas around the beach area south of the Show Center Area (including the Magnolia Marsh habitat south of Magnolia Street), the areas known to support California least tern and snowy plover, as well as the Show Center Area that was not determined to support sensitive biological resources, but was assessed during monitoring to confirm bird activity (refer to Appendix D of the Draft EIR for monitoring results).

No California least tern or western snowy plover were observed. The state listed Belding’s savannah sparrow was observed within the BCER along with the other birds of interest, with the Osprey south of the Show Center Area recorded foraging.

No observed birds, including the Belding’s savannah sparrow, indicated disturbance during Airshow activities south of the Show Center Area or at the BCER, as they were observed sufficiently far from the main Airshow activities associated with the Show Center Area. In general, several flocks at the beach (near the Show Center Area) dispersed due to larger aircraft flying overhead. Shorebird foraging seemed to be influenced by larger crowds of people attracted to the beach and potentially to aircraft as they were found south of the Show Center Area at the Santa Ana River outflow during the Airshow. ESA biologists observed them foraging earlier in the day in sections of the beach before the Airshow and large crowds appeared, but these areas were later void of shorebirds once crowds appeared.

In summary, foraging flocks and birds observed appeared relatively undisturbed at BCER North and South (either unaffected or resumed disrupted foraging behavior shortly after aircraft moved away from the area). No streamers or other debris were observed in the Reserve or other habitat areas during monitoring.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-8 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

3.3 Individual Responses
The following section contains the written comments received on the Draft EIR followed by the responses to those comments. They are presented with consecutive numbering (e.g., Letter 1, Letter 2, Letter 3, etc.).

Consistent with Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, comments that raise significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside the scope of CEQA review will be forwarded for consideration to the decision-makers as part of the Project approval process. All comments will be considered by the Lead Agency when making a decision on the Project.

3.4 Response to Written Comments
The following are written comment letters received, followed by their responses.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
301 E Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071

April 7, 2025
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

RE: Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project, City of Huntington Beach Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Review

Connor Hyland,

Thank you for the invitation to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (project) located along the public beach along Pacific Coast Highway between 7
th Street and Beach Boulevard in Huntington Beach. As described in the EIR, portions of the project would be located within the California Coastal Commission’s retained permitting jurisdiction for coastal development permits and subject to the requirements of the California Coastal Act.

As described in the EIR, the annual project would enclose approximately one mile of public beach for roughly one week, within which a privately ticketed airshow event space is held for three days.

The privately ticket airshow event space also includes installing temporary infrastructure for private viewing areas, concessions, food and merchandise stalls, restrooms, a temporary runway, live concert staging, electronics such as flight simulators, BMX and skateboard competition facilities, a wave pool, and pyrotechnics. While the event grounds are located along the waterfront of Huntington Beach, Huntington City Beach parking lots, Huntington City Beach RV Campground, and the Huntington Beach Pier, a key feature of the event is civilian and military planes and jets performing flyovers and acrobatic displays over the three days of the event and during the practice week leading up to it, centered around the show center area but encompassing multiple square miles of airspace over coastal habitat and resources. The following comments are related to the proposed project’s consistency with the Coastal Act.

Biological Resources. Coastal Act Section 30240 states that “environmentally sensitive areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values,” and that “development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas…shall be sited and design ed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas.” Planes and jets can have immense and far-reaching noise impacts at ground level, particularly when executing high speed and low altitude maneuvers typical at airshows. Military aircraft, such as F-series jets identified by the EIR as possibly participating regularly in the proposed airshows, typically produce noise levels well in excess of 100 dB at ground level in their vicinity. There are multiple nature preserves in the surrounding area of the airshow containing sensitive habitat that could suffer significant adverse impacts to species present, including endangered nesting birds, by aircraft flying over or near their boundaries. Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, Brookhurst Marsh, and Los Cerritos Wetlands are just some of the sensitive habitat areas located in close proximity to the airshow center and potential flight paths.

In its study of potential biological impacts, the draft EIR limited its biological study area to only a small portion of the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and completely excluded other nearby sensitive habitat areas from its analysis. Flight paths for aircraft participating in the airshow can be expected to extend well beyond the approach corridors outlined in the EIR, and as such, impacts should be Comment Letter 1
1-1
1-2
Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project
Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Review

Page 2 of 3 ends

analyzed across the potential operating airspace of participating aircraft, not simply flight paths to the associated airfields. It is recommended that the whole of any sensitive habitat areas such as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and others that could be flown over by aircraft should be analyzed for their coastal biological resources and risk of impact. Similarly, alternative flight paths to and from the associated airfields that completely avoid sensitive habitat areas, as well as alternatives to the Airshow Performance Area that minimize risk of flight path intersection with habitat areas should be considered.

Because flight paths can change and deviate from expected areas without notice during aircraft maneuvering despite guidance, mitigation measures for habitat monitoring for the event should be expanded to include the whole of nearby preserves and also be conducted during all practice and performance days. Additionally, the project proponent should clarify how the information from habitat monitoring surveys will be used to inform operational changes to mitigate any observed impacts. It is recommended that mitigation planning engage with State and local agencies to ensure the efficacy of these plans in the protection of biological resources.

Water Quality. Section 30230 of the Coastal Act requires that marine resources be protected, while Section 30231 requires that water quality of coastal waters be protected by minimizing waste water and runoff pollution. With the event including the sale of food and drink and the potential placement of temporary restrooms, motorized vehicles, aircraft, and wave pools on the beach along coastal waters, all of which have potential pollution impacts on ocean waters, the risks to water quality from these activities and any unexpected spills should be analyzed. Information should be provided on the materials being used and the equipment required for the construction of the temporary infrastructure referenced in the EIR, such as the temporary runway, wave pools, concert staging, flight simulators, and any concessions. Potential impacts should be fully considered and minimized to ensure the protection of water quality and marine resources. It is recommended that water quality best management practices (BMPs) be proposed as part of this mitigation strategy.

Furthermore, the EIR identifies fuel dumps into ocean waters as a possibility from participating aircraft without indicating any plans for how a spill event would be responded to and managed.

Section 20232 of the Coastal Act requires that spillage during the transportation of petroleum products be protected against and that procedures for the effective containment and cleanup facilities in the case of a spill be provided in development plans. It is recommended that response plans be prepared in the case of an aircraft fuel dump to protect marine resources and water quality.

Public Access. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act ensures that development along the coast does not interfere with the public’s constitutionally protected right of access to the sea, including dry sand and rocky coastal beaches, acquired through use or legislative authorization. The EIR should also be clarified to explain how vertical and lateral public access to the shoreline will be maintained during the event, and set-up and take-down of all temporary infrastructure. Further, more information should be provided on how public parking access is being preserved, with specific mention of event related facilities that will be located in public parking lots.

The EIR also does not account for potential impacts from the music festival and after party taking place during the days of the airshow, despite it using the same enclosed area as the airshow, being closed to the public, and being characterized as the “Official After Party of the Pacific Airshow.” The potential coastal resource impacts of this portion of the event should be analyzed and mitigated, or alternatives should be proposed that do not restrict public access after the hours of the event. In the case that music festival is held, consideration should be given to offering low cost or free tickets to increase accessibility for a broad portion of the public. 1-2
(cont.)
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project
Coastal Commission Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Review

Page 3 of 3 ends

Please note that the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Coastal Commission staff requests notification of any future activity associated with this project to provide more specific comments as the project develops. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions.

Sincerely,

Seth Villanueva
Coastal Program Analyst

1-8
~?
I
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-12 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 1: California Coastal Commission
Response to Comment 1-1
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 1-2
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, which includes a small piece of Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER) and half of the Brookhurst Marsh. This biological study area (BSA) does not overlap sensitive ecological areas including Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and Los Cerritos Wetlands.

Therefore, they were not analyzed as part of this Project. 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 1-3
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 will request 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.

Because pilots could be instructed by the ATC to fly over the BCER, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project for one day prior to the start of any pre-Airshow activities (i.e., aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers) and for every day of pre-airshow activities and Airshow activities to determine whether Airshow Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-13 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no Airshow-related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas.

Impacts to the BCER are also discussed in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, under 3.2.5.1 Special-Status Species, pages 3.2-39 through 3.2-41, and was determined to not significantly contribute to impacts to special-status birds, including nesting areas, due to the existing conditions of numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft and helicopter activity from which flights regularly operate over the BCER.

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 1-4
The Airshow proposes no new permanent development. As described in Appendix B, Initial Study, pages 3-36 and 3-37, there would be no potential for construction, grading, or ground disturbance and thus the Airshow does not need to comply with the water quality requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Airshow would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Since most of the Project Site consists of flat sandy beaches, there is no potential for surface runoff.

Further, where paved areas exist (e.g., parking lots and bicycle and walking trails) within the Project Site, adequate City storm drain systems currently exist.

According to Appendix B, Initial Study, page 3-56, restrooms available for the Airshow would consist of the existing restrooms, over one-hundred (100) portable and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) bathrooms, and several restroom trailers located throughout the venue. Each of the single portable restrooms would sit in a containment tray on top of plywood (or other suitable flooring) and would not be within 50 feet of an existing storm drain. Wastewater generated from the Airshow is hauled off by the Applicant’s vendors (i.e., portable bathrooms).

According to Appendix B, Initial Study, page 3-33, all heavy equipment would be refueled in the parking lots. A drip pan would be placed below the equipment to catch potential stray fuel leakage and would be stored at least four inches AGL. A spill kit would be available if needed during refueling. Four-wheel drive fuel carts would service the generators on the beach with each generator placed on plywood for stabilization. The fuel carts would be equipped with a spill kit and drip pan for fueling of generators. Spill kits would be available throughout the Project Site.

The Applicant would ensure the spill kits contain adequate amount of absorbent and suitable containment materials at all times during the Airshow. Vehicles and equipment that cannot be fixed or repaired immediately onsite would be removed from the area. A fuel tank would be placed in the parking lot.

Consistent with the City’s franchise agreement, the Applicant would contract and coordinate refuse needs with the City’s waste management provider, Republic Services. Republic Services Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-14 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

would provide cardboard general waste and recycling bins with lids to be located throughout the Show Center Area including the reserved parking lot areas and would place dumpster bins in accordance with expected attendance. Dedicated food waste bins would be placed in the hospitality areas throughout the venue. The Applicant would be responsible to replace all full trash can liners throughout the venue and to place the trash from the bins into the dumpsters to then be removed by Republic Services following the conclusion of the Airshow. The Applicant would encourage all food vendors to avoid plastics (straws, cups, lids) and recommend use of paper straws or straw less lids.

Response to Comment 1-5
According to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, pages 3.2-44 and 3.2-45 of the Draft EIR, there is the potential for low probability, potentially high impact event of an emergency fuel dump from aircraft in the air for safety reasons. Typically, most of the fuel that is dumped 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 where they could be subject to photooxidation and contribute to regional pollution including the formation of smog. A typical F/A-18 super hornet has a fuel capacity of approximately 2,000 gallons and might require dumping 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 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 1-6
To accurately address public access during the Airshow and multi-day music festival, the following text changes will be made to Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.6.6, Access, Ingress/Egress, Road Closures, and Parking, Pages 2-13 and 2-14 of the Draft EIR:

2.6.6 Vehicular Access, Ingress/Egress, Road Closures, and Parking, and Public Access 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 6th 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, Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-15 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

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 equipment, set up, production on event days, and event breakdown. 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 500 parking spaces represents approximately 8 percent of the total available public access parking within Huntington City Beach and Huntington State Beach, including approximately 6,200 parking spaces in the Project vicinity. All other details regarding parking will be governed by a future agreement between the City and the Applicant. 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 the 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 most all other public spaces such as the bicycle and walking trails along Pacific Coast Highway, sidewalks, and commercial/restaurants uses in the immediate vicinity, are free-to-view spaces.

Response to Comment 1-7
The Draft EIR addresses potential impacts from the potential music festival. The multi-day music festival would occur following the conclusion of the Airshow up to 11:00 PM over three (3) days over the weekend directed towards the ocean with separately sold tickets. Nighttime flyovers or displays by designated aircraft including parachute jumps onto the beach within the Performance Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-16 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Area would be relatively quick in duration, even if multiple flyovers occurred, during the evening hours and potentially simultaneously with the music or between music acts.

The multi-day music festival would be located generally within the northernmost portion of the Show Center Area within Concert Area #1 (Area A) or alternatively the southernmost portion of the Show Center Area within Concert Area #2/Additional Seating/Activations Area (Area E).

During the multi-day music festival, and only during 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, some areas, particularly those near the flight high-risk zones and parachute jump landing areas, 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 nighttime flyovers or displays. 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 multi-day music festival area (Area A or Area E) does not close off the entire beach. All other areas of the sandy beach, including substantially all of the other public spaces, are free to view spaces.

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.

Response to Comment 1-8
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.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS

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

GRACE KATO, Acting 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: 196.574.1900
April 7, 2025
File Ref: SCH #2024020006
Connor Hyland
Senior Deputy Attorney
City of Huntington Beach, Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY ([email protected])

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach, Orange County

Dear Connor Hyland:

The California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach (Project), which is being prepared by the City of Huntington Beach (hereinafter referred to as “the City”). The City is the public agency that has prepared the Draft EIR to inform decision-makers and the general public of the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project, and is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). The Commission is a trustee agency for projects that could directly or indirectly affect State sovereign lands and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. Additionally, because the Project involves activity on State sovereign land under the Commission’s jurisdiction, the Commission will act as a responsible agency.

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 Comment Letter 2
2-1
2-2
Of,'/j/ U'I V,Jf/1'1Jf/Tnf-'.') q ·/ #' -~ ·/,;;?,
"'
Connor Hyland Page 2 April 7, 2025
submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

A review of the Project described in the Draft EIR indicates that certain components of the Project clearly require Commission authorization, and that other components of the Project may require Commission authorization. The proposed Project includes an Airshow Performance Area which is to be situated on the Pacific Ocean with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 feet and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 feet. This area would be demarcated by 16 large white buoys installed in the Pacific Ocean waterward of the mean high tide line (MHTL), which in this location is ungranted sovereign lands managed by the Commission. Placement of the proposed buoys will require Commission authorization, generally in the form of a lease.

The proposed Project also includes a helicopter and aircraft landing/runway display on a temporary landing surface to be generally located within an open area directly in front of the Main Hospitality Area during the hours of the airshow.

Based on the current Project information, the construction and/or use of the proposed runway may encroach waterward of the MHTL and onto sovereign land subject to the Commission’s leasing jurisdiction, and, if so, would require Commission authorization.

Additionally, Commission Lease 6616, a General Lease – Public Agency Use, was issued to the City for the operation and maintenance of an existing municipal pier (Huntington Beach Pier or Pier) and related concessions for a term of 25 years, beginning June 21, 2018. 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. Staff is aware that the proposed Project will utilize the Pier for purchasable seating, umbrellas, cocktail tables, and bars (page 2-13,

2.6.5 Show Center Layout and Viewing). The Draft EIR states that all Pier seating would be landward of the MHTL. However, should any Project component or activity on the Pier encroach waterward of the MHTL, Commission authorization will be needed in the form of either an amendment to the City’s lease, or issuance of a new lease to the City or the event operator. Furthermore, any 2-2
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Page 3 April 7, 2025
other use of the Pier waterward of the MHTL, such as the proposed pyrotechnic shows described in the Draft EIR, may require Commission authorization; at the very least, these proposed activities will require submission of a detailed proposal to Commission staff for review. Finally, should the Project’s use of the Pier impact or prohibit public access to the areas of the Pier waterward of the MHTL, then this would violate the City’s lease and the common law Public Trust Doctrine.

It must also be noted that the Commission owns approximately 1,200 acres of sovereign lands in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (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 portions of the BCER comprising the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project.

Project Objectives
The City provides an extensive list of preliminary Project objectives (page 2-6) and states that the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach event will achieve the City’s objectives and need. Those objectives related to Commission jurisdiction and Public Trust resources include, but are not limited to: providing a gathering place for locals and visitors to enjoy civilian and military aircraft flybys, aerial acrobatics and festivals, promoting coastal access, and promoting awareness and use of the Pier and beaches.

In addition, the Draft EIR claims that the Project will, “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” but offers no analysis that adequately supports this claim. The Commission and CDFW have provided the City evidence from past airshow events that the Project has impacted the surrounding sensitive habitat areas, including the BCER. Staff requests that the City include all information the City has regarding documented and potential impacts and the specific ways that the event reduces potential impacts to sensitive habitat.

Project Description
From the Project Description, Commission staff understands that the Project would include the following components that have potential to affect State sovereign land:
2-2
(cont.)
2-3
2-4
2-5
Connor Hyland Page 4 April 7, 2025
x Future airshows: Past airshows have taken place over a 3-day period with 2 or more practice flyover days. Future airshows discussed in the Draft EIR may be extended to 5 event days plus practice flyover days (page 2-7, Project Characteristics) and last from as early as 9:00 AM to as late as 11:00 PM.
x Helicopter and aircraft landing/runway display: A temporary runway would be constructed of stadium flooring on the beach in front of the Main Hospitality Area.
x Pyrotechnic Daily and Nightly Shows: Both daily and nightly shows may be discharged by aircraft, the Huntington Beach Pier, or an ocean barge.

Nightly pyrotechnic shows would conclude by 11:00 PM.
x Beach Camping: Stadium flooring would be installed on the beach in Area C (page 2-9, Future Airshow Activities) to accommodate parking for recreational vehicles to camp on the beach, generally between Thursday and Monday morning following the event.
x Airshow Flight Paths: The Airshow’s TFR area includes sensitive habitats, including BCER.

The Draft EIR identifies (page 4-10) Alternative 2: 2023 Airshow Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, as the No Project Alternative does not fulfill any Project objectives. Alternative 2 considers a 3-day event, with none of the new airshow activities identified in Section 2.6, Project Characteristics, which include a music festival, drone displays, pyrotechnic shows, aircraft/runway display, etc.

Environmental Review
As explained in the following comments, the EIR requires revision to comply with CEQA and to support a future lease approval by the Commission. Commission staff requests that the City consider the following comments on the Project’s EIR to ensure that impacts to State sovereign land are adequately analyzed for the Commission’s use of the EIR when considering a future lease application or other approval for the Project. In addition, Commission staff strongly recommends that the City recirculate the EIR once the document has been updated with more information on the Project site and activities, associated impacts, and mitigation measures to ensure meaningful responsible agency input and public review.

In the absence of an updated EIR, Commission staff may need to undertake subsequent environmental review as part of future lease application processing or to support a future Commission action. Staff have attached the comment letter submitted on March 4, 2024, during the Notice of Preparation comment period (Attachment 1) and will refer to it throughout this section.

2-5
(cont.)
2-6
Connor Hyland Page 5 April 7, 2025
General Comments

1. Project Description: Staff comments pr eviously provided (Comments 1 and 2, page 5 of Attachment 1) still generally apply to the Draft EIR. While the Draft EIR states that all project activities would take place “landward of the State Lands Commission MHTL,” several components would be present below the MHTL, such as pyrotechnic shows that would be launched from the Huntington Beach Pier or from an ocean barge as well as the marker buoys required to set the perimeter of the aerobatic box/Airshow Performance Area in the Pacific Ocean. The installation of these buoys, in particular, would require a lease from the Commission and has no description or impact analysis in the Draft EIR, which may hinder the Commission’s ability to rely solely upon the EIR when considering a lease. Staff suggests that the Project area boundary be revised to include all Airshow activities, including those falling below the MHTL. In addition, the Draft EIR lists some project activities in Section 2.6, Project Characteristics, (e.g., use of an ocean barge, beach camping, drone shows, helicopter and aircraft landing/runway display etc.) but does not discuss or analyze them further. All activities for the Project need to be analyzed in the EIR and should be included on relevant figures to determine if Commission approval would be required. If these activities are not analyzed in the EIR, then the Project Description must be revised to remove them from the proposed Project/event.

The Final EIR must also confirm specific timing for future airshows. The airshow event dates should be included in the Project Description, where page 2-6 already states that historic airshow events occur “during the fall season, typically towards the end of September/beginning of October.” If the EIR provides impact significance determinations that are predicated on specific scheduling for the event (e.g., the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) conclusion of a less-than-significant impact to nesting birds because the airshow would be scheduled outside of the April-September breeding season), then the Project must be designed and described to include those restrictions. Alternatively, the Project Description could clarify that the event may happen at any point during the year, but the EIR must then revise its analysis to address new, potential impacts and provide feasible mitigation.

2. Project Feature - Biological Monitors: The Draft EIR discusses the use of biological monitors in Section 2.6.4, Airport Origin, Airshow Flight Paths, and Airshow Performance Duration, which states, “Because pilots could be instructed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly over BCER, pre- activity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project…to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no airshow-related debris drifts into sensitive ecological areas.” The biological monitors should therefore be included in the Project Description and identified as a project feature. The biological 2-7
2-8
2-9
Connor Hyland Page 6 April 7, 2025
monitor’s role should be comprehensively defined to identify how many biological monitors will be required by the Project, where they will be stationed, what the biological monitor is present to observe, and what responses to impacts they are designated to carry out. For example, Section

3.2.5.1, Special-Status Species (page 3.2-40), notes that during a single past airshow event a streamer drifted into the Biological Study Area (BSA) and was removed within 15 minutes by the City’s fire department. Staff recommends that the Project Description describe both the biological monitor’s purpose, to “…ensure that no airshow-related debris drifts into sensitive ecological areas,” and their required response (e.g., the monitor must promptly report fallen debris in the BSA and coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department and CDFW for swift removal).

3. Public Agency Approvals: Staff notes that the Draft EIR omits the Commission from the list of public agencies with approval authority over the Project. In the Final EIR’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 Final EIR’s list (page 2-15) of public agencies whose approval is required, please include the Commission as a CEQA Responsible Agency.

Biological Resources

4. Impacts to BCER Special Status Species: A portion of the BCER was included in the Draft EIR’s BSA and accompanying BRTR (Appendix D). However, while the BSA and BRTR include flight paths to and from the Training Base at Los Alamitos and John Wayne Airport as part of the project description, neither one includes “turn around” flight paths for jets within the Project’s TFR Area, and no surveys were conducted for those “turn around” flight paths. These “turn arounds” have been observed occurring directly over BCER during past airshows, with jets observed flying below 500 feet in elevation. The CDFW on- site management staff at BCER have documented these flights by both photographic and video evidence for the airshows in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. Documentation of these flights in prior years is recorded in emails.

Video evidence has been sent to the City of Huntington Beach by Commission staff. CDFW staff shared the video evidence with local non- governmental organizations, FAA, Commission staff, Code Four, California Coastal Commission, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and CBS news.

The Draft EIR’s analysis of environmental impacts to BCER is therefore incomplete, as the BRTR lacks critical data both to assess impacts and project effects from the jet “turn arounds” and to consider potential mitigation measures.
2-9
(cont.)
2-10
2-11
Connor Hyland Page 7 April 7, 2025
The Draft EIR should also evaluate noise and vibration impacts on special status species from potential aircraft fly-overs within and outside of the project area designated within the EIR, including BCER. Mitigation measures could include species-specific activity windows established in coordination with CDFW, USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Staff recommends early consultation with these agencies to minimize Project impacts on sensitive species.

In addition, trash and debris created during the event, including streamers used in association with parachute performances, can pose a risk to wildlife through potential exposure, ingestion, and/or entanglement. Trash and debris can also lead to degradation of habitat. Staff request that the EIR should describe avoidance and mitigation measures, including best management practices, for the proper containment of trash and debris from the event to prevent these hazards from overflowing to the surrounding beach, water, and greater coastal area, including BCER.

5. Mitigation: Section 3.3.5.1, Wildlife Hazards Analysis, discusses the potential safety hazard posed from wildlife strikes, which could occur in the airspace over Commission jurisdiction and indirectly affect biological resources, sovereign lands, and/or the public utilizing those lands. On page 3.3-12, the “Significance before Mitigation” identifies the impact as “Potentially Significant.” However, even though the Draft EIR determines that the resulting level of significance is less than significant with mitigation, neither Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 nor MM HAZ-2 reduce the severity of this impact. MM HAZ-1 requires a pre-airshow site visit and subsequent wildlife hazard memorandum, at an undetermined date, to recommend wildlife hazard reductions and to potentially include a long-term management strategy. MM HAZ-2 requires a biological monitor to observe event performances and document bird activity during aircraft flyovers and take-off and landing within the Show Center Area, later using this information to inform the wildlife hazard memorandum. Both measures allow the proposed Project’s activities to occur, for an undetermined period of time, without addressing the potentially significant impact through alteration of activities or any compensatory mitigation. As such, MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 are not adequate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), as they defer potential impact reduction to some future time and do not provide specific performance standards for future mitigation actions as well as the types of actions that could feasibly achieve that performance standard. If the Final EIR does not revise MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 to fulfill these criteria, then the impact determination must be changed to Significant and Unavoidable.

Biological monitoring as mitigation is also potentially discussed in Section

3.2.5.1, Special-Status Species, wherein the Draft EIR analyzes bird strike 2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15
t
Connor Hyland Page 8 April 7, 2025
impacts over BCER. Page 3.2-40 acknowledges that, even after the Applicant’s proposed measures, “…the Pr oject could increase the amount of air traffic over [BCER].” The subsequent analysis and impact determination is contradictory: first, the narrative notes that “…with implementation of these measures, impacts from potential overflights are not expected to be significant,” which assumes a potentially significant impact absent the measures, but then ends the discussion by stating “…the additional temporary activity of the annual operation of the Airshow would not significantly contribute to impacts to special-status birds within the BSA.” If the first statement is correct, then staff notes that the “measures” (preactivity surveys and biological monitoring) are inadequate similar to MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2, discussed immediately above, and the analysis on page 3.2-40 would require similar revisions. If the second statement is correct, then the EIR must be revised to provide substantial evidence for a less-than-significant impact determination.

The Commission strongly encourages the City, as the CEQA lead agency, to collaborate with CDFW, for those species under CDFW’s jurisdiction, in the development of enforceable mitigation measures with performance criteria to demonstrate reduced impacts, supported with substantial evidence.

6. Drones: The Draft EIR failed to ad dress Commission comments, submitted during the scoping period (please refer to page 8 of Attachment 1), on the use of drones throughout various Airshow activities. The Draft EIR neglects to analyze impacts on biological resources from the use of drones in the Show Center Area and Airshow Performance Area, or from accidental incursions or drone crashes into BCER. While unrelated to past airshows, the impact risk is more than theoretical given that in 20211 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, resulting in a massive reproductive loss for the species, which has only four known nesting sites left on earth. Staff recommend that the impacts of drones should be fully analyzed for performances held in the Show Center Area, Airshow Performance Area, and revised BSA (please refer to Comment 4 related to BCER) and appropriate mitigation measures should be included in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures could include, but not be limited to, requiring event Urban Air Mobility (UAM)/drone operators to utilize the FAA’s B4UFly app (see CDFW webpage, 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)). In

1 Wisckol, Martin, “Illegal drone scares terns, which abandon 2,000 eggs on Bolsa Chica nesting island”. Orange County Register, June, 3, 2021. https://www.ocregister.com/2021/06/03/illegal- drone-scares-terns-which-abandon-3000-eggs-on-bolsa-chica-nesting-island/ 2-15
(cont.)
2-16
2-17
I
Connor Hyland Page 9 April 7, 2025
addition, in accordance with the California Code of Regulations title 14, section 550 related to public use of CDFW lands, “No visitor shall operate any aircraft, drone, or other unmanned aircraft system…within department lands except as authorized by a Special Use Permit issued by the department.”

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

7. Spills and Vehicle Discharges: Beach camp ing is an activity planned for Area C of the Show Center Area; this activity was not part of the Project during the NOP scoping period. The construction of the beach camping site would involve laying down and anchoring stadium flooring onto the beach to provide additional overnight parking for recreational vehicles (RVs). Staff note that while the Draft EIR includes Area C camping as part of the Project Description on page 2-9, all other camping discussions in the Draft EIR only identify Area G for RV camping (an area located upland of the beach). The EIR should analyze the risk of accidental spills or other discharges from RVs (e.g., fuels, oils, grey water and black water, trash) camping in Area C and provide mitigation or minimization measures, as appropriate for the level of significance. The EIR should also identify potential impacts from construction equipment or motorized vehicle spills on or adjacent to the beach and include a spill contingency plan as well as refueling restrictions.

8. Streamer Drops: Streamer drops, wh ich are anticipated as part of the opening ceremony on each day of the Airshow, could pose a potentially significant impact to power lines in the BCER. If streamers were to fall on power lines, a fire could start in the active oil operation, endangering human health and safety. The EIR should identify the materials the streamers are made of and analyze this potentially significant impact.

Recreation

9. Public Access: The Draft EIR dismisses recreation impacts from further analysis in Section 5.1, Environmental Impacts Not Found to be Significant. One of the Project’s stated objectives is to provide an event that “promotes coastal access,” and staff have provided specific concerns related to coastal access to the Pier and beach during the Airshow event (Comment 12, page 10 of Attachment 1). The figures provided in the Draft EIR, including Figure 2- 8, are not detailed enough to demonstrate how public access will be maintained throughout the event. The text of the Draft EIR only states (page 2-13) that “All Pier seating is landward of the State Lands Commission MHTL…only a portion of the Pier would be reserved for seated ticketholders and pier ingress and egress would still be provided” without describing through figures or photos how this would occur. Figures and/or a written description of how horizontal access to the beach would be maintained are 2-17
(cont.)
2-18
2-19
2-20
Connor Hyland Page 10 April 7, 2025
also not included in the Draft EIR. Staff reiterates these concerns, as originally submitted during the scoping period, and requests that this impact be analyzed and included in the EIR.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the Project. As a responsible and trustee agency, the Commission will rely on the Final EIR in amending or issuing a new lease. Staff requests that the City consider these comments before certifying the EIR. If the City, as it addresses comments and evaluates new impacts or revises impact discussions, identifies new significant impacts or substantial increases to an impact’s severity (mitigated or unmitigated), then, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(a), staff expect to be notified of the Draft EIR’s partial or full recirculation for the opportunity to review and provide meaningful comment.

Please also send electronic copies of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Notice of Determination, approving resolution, CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations when they are final.

Please note that federal and state laws require all government entities to improve accessibility of information technology and content by complying with established accessibility requirements. (29 U.S.C. § 794d; 36 C.F.R. § 1194.1 et seq.; Gov. Code, § 7405.) California State law prohibits State agencies from publishing on their websites content that does not comply with accessibility requirements. (Gov. Code, § 115467.) Therefore, any documents submitted to Commission staff during the processing of a lease or permit that will be posted online, including relevant CEQA documentation, must meet accessibility requirements for Commission staff to place the application on the Commission agenda.

Refer questions concerning environmental review to Robin Tuohy, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected]. For questions concerning Commission leasing jurisdiction, please contact Jeffrey Plovnick, Public Land Management Specialist, at [email protected].

S i n c e r e l y ,

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

cc: Office of Planning and Research
2-20
(cont.)
2-21
2-22
1 Connor Hyland Page 11 April 7, 2025
R. Tuohy, Commission
J. Plovnick, Commission
L. Calvo, Commission
W. Hall, Commission

Attachment:
1) March 4, 2024, Notice of Preparation Comment Letter from Commission staff to the City of Huntington Beach
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 2-23
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 2-23
(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:
2-23
(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.

2-23
(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. 2-23
(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/). 2-23
(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 2-23
(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).
2-23
(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 2-23
(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 2-23
(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.

2-23
(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 2-23
(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
2-23
(cont.)
Connor Hyland Pg. 14 March 4, 2024

C. Day, Commission
K. Connor, Commission
W. Hall, Commission
L. Calvo, Commission
Y. Ramirez, Commission
2-23
(cont.)
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-42 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 2: California State Lands Commission
Response to Comment 2-1
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 2-2
The Applicant submitted the SLC lease application (application number A0000004914) on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, to work with the SLC on authorizing components of the Project within SLC’s jurisdiction.

Response to Comment 2-3
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 2-4
One of the Project Objectives, as provided in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-6, of the Draft EIR is to “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.” To achieve this objective, and as part of the Project Description, the Applicant will provide mandatory, daily, formal briefings each day of the Airshow regarding the location, nature, and sensitivity of the BCER. The Applicant will request an avoidance of overflights over this area and, when overflights of the BCER cannot be avoided, the Applicant will request that overflights occur at 1,000 feet AGL or higher. To further reduce potential impacts to sensitive species, as stated on pages 2-10 and 2-11 of Chapter 2, Project Description, “Because pilots could be instructed by the ATC 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 pre-Airshow activities 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.” As reflected in Master Response D, the biological monitoring efforts have been expanded to also include monitoring during all pre- Airshow days (that include practice flights), as well as a number of other, additional monitoring requirements.

The combination of daily flight briefings, biological monitoring (refer to Master Response D), and the timing of the Airshow relative to the nesting season refer to Master Response C) provides substantial evidence that the Project would reduce potential impacts to the surrounding sensitive habitat including the BCER, the Huntington Beach Wetlands, the Magnolia Marsh, and special- status wildlife species such as the federally endangered California least tern and western snowy plover.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-43 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

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. Refer to Master Response C for a discussion on timing of the Airshow relative to the nesting season and Master Response D for a more detailed discussion of the biological resource monitoring efforts. 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 2-5
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 2-6
Refer to Response to Comment 2-2 for a discussion of the California State Lands Commission lease application/permit process.

While the commentor requests recirculation of the Draft EIR, Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates recirculation is only necessary if significant new information is provided showing that a new significant environmental impact would occur; a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would occur; if a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it; or if the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043). Section 15088.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” The comments received on this Draft EIR do not meet any of the requirements of Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, as demonstrated by this Response to Comments document, and, instead, satisfy the mandate provided by Section 15088.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Response to Comment 2-7
[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 2-8 (Nesting Season)
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion on timing of the Airshow relative to the nesting season.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-44 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 2-9 (Biological Monitoring)
Refer to Master Response D for a more detailed discussion of the biological resource monitoring efforts.

Response to Comment 2-10
The following text changes will be made to Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-15, of the Draft EIR:

Review and Approvals
The Airshow is anticipated to require the following review and approval by the City of Huntington Beach as the Lead Agency under CEQA and the California State Lands Commission as a Responsible Agency under CEQA:
• Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. • Issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
• Approval of a State Lands Lease(s) and/or Lease Amendment from the California State Lands Commission.
• Approval of the Specific Event Permit Application.

Response to Comment 2-11
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.

No flights have dropped below 1,000 feet AGL during any prior Airshows. The only aircraft that would have flown over the BCER would be the Thunderbirds due to their routine and maneuvering packages. Further, in 2024, no overflights were below 1,000 feet AGL pursuant to the Applicant’s request of all military aircraft, although the ultimate decision was made by the individual pilots. It is not possible to obtain the average elevation of flights during the Airshow as this information is visible only for the pilot from the altimeter within the cockpit. According to the Applicant, there are multiple daily helicopter operations within the BCER that operate below 500 feet AGL. Daily, there are numerous commercial flights, private jets, and private general aviation aircraft that fly over the BCER.

Response to Comment 2-12
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow and Master Response D for a discussion of the biological monitoring efforts before and during future Airshows to avoid and/or minimize impacts to potentially nesting birds, if they occur late in the nesting season, as well as the results of biological monitoring that occurred during the first two days of the 2023 Airshow (September 29, 2023, and September 30, 2023), which did not detect noise-related impacts to sensitive species during flyovers or the presence of nests.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-45 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 2-13
With respect to the disposal of trash and debris, Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-10 of the Draft EIR, specifically states that: “All materials, trash, and debris would be removed from the beach and disposed of off-site daily and at the conclusion of the Airshow.” Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-14, of the Draft EIR goes on to state that “The Applicant would be responsible to replace all full trash can liners throughout the venue and to place the trash from the bins into the dumpsters to then be removed by Republic Services following the conclusion of the Airshow. The Applicant would encourage all food vendors to avoid plastics (straws, cups, lids) and recommend use of paper straws or straw less lids.” Response to Comment 2-14
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 states that a qualified avian biologist will conduct a Wildlife Hazard Site Visit (WHSV) following the protocol developed by the FAA in the Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans (Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5200-38, August 2018) to evaluate potential risk of wildlife strikes at airports (hereafter referred to as the FAA Protocol). The FAA Protocol does not require the WHSV to be conducted during a particular time period. However, the WHSV will be conducted prior to the Airshow, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, to document wildlife activity to inform the WHSV memorandum. If any observations made during the WHSV identifies any potential safety hazards from wildlife, recommendation to reduce those hazards will be made and provided to the Applicant and the City prior to the Airshow.

Observations of potential safety hazards from wildlife made during the Airshow, as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, will inform recommendations to reduce those hazards for future Airshows. Observation made prior to and during the 2023 Airshow will also be used to inform the wildlife hazard recommendations in coordination with the Applicant.

The purpose of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 are to address the hazards presented by birds with respect to aircraft and pilot safety. Alternatively, the biological monitoring identified in the Project Description is to ensure there are no significant impacts to sensitive species caused by aircraft activity during the Airshow.

Response to Comment 2-15
The full text of Section 3.2, Biological Resources, page 3.2-40, of the Draft EIR states that:

Although the Applicant would provide daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all pilots about the sensitivity of BCER and would request avoidance of overflights over the area, the Project could increase the amount of air traffic that occurs over the Bolsa Creek Ecological Reserve. Because pilots could be instructed by the ATC 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 Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-46 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

that no Airshow-related debris drifts into sensitive ecological areas. With implementation of these measures, impacts from potential overflights are not expected to be significant.

The measures that are referenced in this text are not mitigation measures, which would be used if a potentially significant impact was identified, but avoidance measures contained in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. The use of avoidance measures is further supported by the biological resources monitoring that occurred as part of the 2023 Airshow, which did not detect noise-related impacts to sensitive species during flyovers or the presence of nests. Further, both the CDFW and the existing oil rig operator regularly use aircraft for ongoing work operations at the BCER, which presumably can occur because the operation of that aircraft similarly does not result in an on-going impact on sensitive birds (or other species) in the area due to the relatively temporary nature (meaning, takeoff and landing, although occurring more regularly than the Airshow and also within the nesting season). Further, there are numerous daily flights operated by commercial and private aircraft that also occur over the BCER (and also within the nesting season). As stated on page 3.2-40 of the Draft EIR:

With the existing conditions of numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft that occur over BCER as well as the regular use of the helipad located within BCER from which flights regularly operate, the additional temporary activity of the annual operation of the Airshow would not significantly contribute to impacts to special-status birds within the BSA.

Because the monitoring efforts have been expanded, both in terms of timing and activities, as reflected in Master Response D, the following text changes will be made to Section 3.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR:

Page 3 ends

Above ground, flights associated with the Airshow could result in bird strikes. According to a 2006 study, the majority of bird strikes (74 percent) occur within 500 feet AGL (Dolbeer 2006). In addition, the FAA reported that 70 percent of bird strikes from 1990 to 2022 occurred at 500 feet AGL (FAA 2023). The majority of the flights planned for the Airshow are expected to fly 500 to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and would only occur during the Airshow hours (historically between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM) and at nighttime, when bird activity is lower. As discussed above, numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft currently fly over the BCER and helicopters regularly land at a helipad located within the BCER next to the tidal inlet. Although the Applicant would provide daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all participating pilots about the sensitivity of BCER and would request avoidance of overflights over the area, the Project could increase the amount of air traffic that occurs over the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Because pilots could be instructed by the FAA 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 sensitive ecological areas. Because pilots could Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-47 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

be instructed by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) to fly over the BCER, 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. The specific monitoring efforts will include the following:
o 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. o 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.
o 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.
o 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. o 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.
o 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.

With implementation of these measures, impacts from potential overflights are not expected to be significant.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-48 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Page 3 ends

The Project may temporarily impact wildlife movement within the BSA as a result of aircraft flyovers. This increased presence could disrupt local movement and displace wildlife within the BSA. Natural reserves and open space areas including BCER and the Huntington Beach Wetlands found to the north and south of the Show Center Area offer refuge for displaced wildlife utilizing upland habitats can disperse to other upland areas in the vicinity, and the temporarily impacted areas would not significantly inhibit local or regional movement of wildlife within these avoided areas of the BSA. Wildlife that is more sensitive to human disturbances and noise may be deterred by the Project related activities. The BCER is an important area in the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds species which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA,

16.U.S.C 703–712). The BCER is also under the protection of California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 630(17) of Title 14 (CDFW 2023c), which states that “no aircraft operations are permitted in a reserve, and low flyovers are in violation.” Sound pollution and repeated overhead flyovers can pose a threat to wildlife or harass wildlife species when they occur directly over an occupied area causing bird populations to take flight each time a plane or low flying aircraft fly over. While the proposed flight path to the Airshow Performance Area is planned to occur 500 to 1,000 feet west of the BCER, over the Pacific Ocean, a helicopter landing/runway display would occur on a temporary aircraft landing pad to be located within the Show Center Area during the hours of the Airshow. The Airshow Performance Area and the Show Center Area are located approximately 2.5 miles south of the BCER with performances scheduled to occur over the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, performances and flyovers will not take place directly over BCER. Also, during the Airshow, planes are expected to fly between 500 to 1,000 feet above MSL (as previously stated, most strikes occur below 500 feet) within the flight path to and from the Show Center Area. Aircraft would be instructed to avoid flying over BCER. A majority of the flights planned for the Airshow would occur 1,000 feet above MSL and would only occur during the Airshow hours (between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM).

Additionally, the operator will provide daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all operators on the sensitivity of BCER and request avoidance of overflights over the area. Because there is a chance that pilots could be planes are instructed by the ATC to fly over BCER, each year, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted as part of the Project, at least one day prior to the pre-Airshow activities and during the operation of the Airshow to confirm if Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior, as well as watching that no Airshow-related debris drifts into sensitive ecological areas. The specific elements of the biological monitoring efforts are described under Section 3.2.5.1, Special-Status Birds. Thus, it is not anticipated that the Project will result in temporary indirect impacts to BCER.

Response to Comment 2-16
Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 for a discussion of the methodology for the biological resources analysis. As discussed in Master Response D, any relevant observations during the monitoring efforts will be reported to the CDFW’s CNDDB website and/or CDFW’s Vegetation Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-49 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Classification and Mapping Program (although the focus of the monitoring efforts is on avian species). Further, all monitoring information will be made available to the public. Lastly, the MMRP will include all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, as well as certain Project Description features that will be voluntarily included in the Project’s MMRP.

Response to Comment 2-17
The drone crash that previously occurred within the BCER noted by the comment was not related to the Airshow.

The Airshow temporary flight restriction (TFR) is a strict “no drone zone.” The only drones that fly within the Airshow’s TFR are authorized by the Airshow and are directed by pilots who participate in the daily briefings regarding Airshow operations, including in the Airshow’s FAA waiver. All pilot documents are collected and provided to the FAA, similar to all pilots who participate in the Airshow. Launching civilian drones within the Airshow’s TRF could result in criminal charges with notable fines. Further, the Airshow obtains anti-drone technology that is deployed each year during the Airshow to mitigate and bring down trespassing drones. As such, the Airshow does not use the FAA’s B4uFly app, which is only used to show where recreational flyers can and cannot fly.

As further discussed in Master Response C, the Airshow is scheduled to occur outside of the nesting season (defined as March 15-September 15 for this project), including the nesting season for elegant tern (early April to mid-June [Animal Diversity Web 2025]5), during the fall (end of September/beginning of October) as discussed in Section 2.6.1 and Section 3.2.5.2 Migratory Wildlife Corridors. Therefore, nesting birds are not anticipated to be impacted by the Airshow, including drone activities. Biological monitoring and surveys have been conducted during the 2023 Airshow to identify potential impacts on bird behavior resulting from Airshow activities, including drone flights, and no noise-related impacts were observed nor were nesting birds.

Response to Comment 2-18
The commentor is correct in noting that RV camping would be allowed in Area G, while beach camping would be allowed in Area C. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, on page 2-9, of the Draft EIR, “Beach camping generally to take place with the Seating/Activations Area (Area C) and may involve using more ABS flooring to allow for recreational vehicles to park on the sand for the duration of the Airshow weekend, generally arriving Thursday and departing Sunday after the conclusion of the Airshow or Monday morning.” Tent camping is unlikely to result in any hazardous materials spills due to the nature of the activity, and RV camping would contain all septic waste within the RV since there are no sewer hoses along the beach. All trash will be disposed of as identified in Response to Comment 2-13.

Response to Comment 2-19
In 2022, there was a single incident where the Army, not Airshow activities, accidentally dropped streamers further down the beach to avoid dropping them in front of the event attendees and disrupting the Airshow. A single streamer ultimately was transported into the BCER. The

5 ADW: Sterna elegans: INFORMATION
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-50 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

streamer was quickly recovered by marine safety. As part of the mandatory in-person or virtual daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow, the Applicant requests that if streamer drops are required, they must be landed near the aerobatic box and away from the BCER or other sensitive areas.

Response to Comment 2-20
Refer to Response to Comment 1-6 for a discussion of public access.

Response to Comment 2-21
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 2-22
The City will either send the MMRP, Notice of Determination, any approving resolutions, CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the California State Lands Commission when they are available or post them on the City’s website and inform the Commission of their availability.

Response to Comment 2-23
In their comment letter, the commentor notes that “Staff have attached the comment letter submitted on March 4, 2024, during the Notice of Preparation comment period Attachment 1) and will refer to it throughout this section.” 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.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

April 7, 2025
Connor Hyland
Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 4th Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
[email protected]
Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project, SCH No. 2024020006, ORANGE COUNTY, CA Dear Connor Hyland:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Huntington Beach (City) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines

1. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code, § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Kevin Elliott, Pacific Airshow LLC (Project proponent/Applicant) Objective: The Project would provide an Airshow in Huntington Beach that features civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics; air racing; electric vehicle and

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Comment Letter 3
3-1
3-2
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 2 of 23 ends

drone displays; competitions and shows; and, displays of other emerging aviation/mobility technologies. To achieve this, the Project will use a temporary runway on the beach for helicopters and aircraft. Additional Project features include visitor- serving entertainment, services, and amenities that include but are not limited to: a variety of viewing areas, vehicle and aircraft demonstrations; illustrations; flight simulations; merchandise tents; concessions; food trucks; live music entertainment; skateboard and bicycle motocross bowl competitions; sandcastle building competitions; art installations; and, pyrotechnic shows. This event has been held annually in the City during the fall season each year since 2016, except in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Airshow activities will typically begin at approximately 10am and may extend to 11pm. New events that have not historically occurred include multi-day air racing; a music festival; nighttime flyovers including parachute jumps onto the beach; nightly pyrotechnic shows to be discharged from either aircraft or an ocean barge; and, landing aircraft on a temporary runway on the beach.

Location: The Project is in the City of Huntington Beach, which is in coastal Orange County. The on-the-ground event portion of the Airshow (the “show center area”) is located on the beach; its boundaries are approximately from 7 th Street to Beach
Boulevard along Pacific Coast Highway, and from Pacific Coast Highway to the Pacific Ocean (including a portion of the Huntington Beach Pier). The Project describes the Airshow performance area as being the primary area for aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics. This performance area is over the Pacific Ocean, adjacent to the show center area, with an east-west length of approximately 3,000 feet and a north-south length of approximately 12,000 feet. The performance area is identified by 16 buoys placed in the ocean. Many of the aircraft flights spill out of the performance area into the temporary flight restriction (TFR) airspace administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the airshow. The TFR is a five-nautical mile ring centered on the airshow’s performance area. The show center area and the airshow performance area collectively comprise the Project Site. For the purposes of technical analysis within the DEIR, a broader study area was defined that extends beyond the Project Site to reflect the potential impacts associated with civilian and military flybys and aerial acrobatics transiting to/from the Airshow performance area.

Timeframe: Future airshows are anticipated to be held for three to five 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.

Settlement: The City and the Project proponent entered into a Settlement Agreement and General Release
2 (Settlement), effective May 9, 2023, following litigation pertaining to the City’s cancellation of the final day of the Airshow in 2021. The Settlement contemplates the City conducting environmental review as required by CEQA. The Settlement also requires that if the Project proponent desires to conduct future

2 https://cms3.revize.com/revize/huntingtonbeachca/SETTLEMENT%20AGREEMENT%20AND%20GENERAL%20RELEASE_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf

3-2
(cont.)
3-3
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 3 of 23 ends

airshows, they and the City will enter into a separate “Air Show Event Agreement” to hold at least one airshow event per year, on dates selected by the Project proponent, for a term of 10 years with the option to renew up to 3 times for additional 10-year terms.

Biological Setting: The Project Site and surrounding areas contain a wide variety of extraordinarily sensitive habitats and wildlife species, including both terrestrial and marine resources. The area immediately surrounding the Project Site contains various protected coastal wetlands, including Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER). BCER is an approximately 1,300-acre coastal estuary which contains open water, mudflats, coastal dunes, riparian habitats, freshwater marsh, and saltwater marsh. BCER’s saltwater marsh is one of largest remaining in Southern California. More than 200 avian species have been identified there. BCER is an important stopover along the Pacific Flyway for hundreds of migratory bird species. CDFW is responsible for on-site management of BCER, which provides important habitat for sensitive wildlife species, including:
x Western snowy plover ( Charadrius nivosus nivosus; Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed threatened, California Species of Special Concern (SSC))
x Light- footed Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus levipes; ESA-listed endangered, California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listed endangered, State Fully Protected (FP))
x Coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica; ESA-listed threatened, SSC)
x Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi; CESA-listed endangered)
x California least tern ( Sterna antillarum browni; ESA-listed endangered, CESA- listed endangered, FP)
x White-tailed kite ( Elanus leucurus; FP)
x Peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus anatum)
x Burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia; CESA candidate)
x Northern harrier (Circus hudsonius ; SSC)
x Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; CDFW Watch List (WL)) x Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus; WL)
x Tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor; CESA-listed threatened) x California brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) x Short-eared owl ( Asio flammeus; SSC)
Additionally, less than three miles from the center of the airshow performance area, there are two marine protected areas: Bolsa Bay State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) and Bolsa Chica Basin SMCA. Under the State Marine Life Protection Act, SMCAs protect tidal lands, wetlands up to the mean high tide line, fish, and fish habitat for many species that are both state and federally managed.

3-3
(cont.)
3-4
1 Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 4 of 23 ends

Project History: CDFW has an extensive history communicating with the FAA, the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission (SLC), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the City regarding the Airshow and its impacts to wildlife. On August 25, 2023, CDFW and SLC jointly sent a letter to the City describing impacts to birds due to the 2021 and 2022 airshows. These impacts included aircraft dropping streamers in BCER, and repeated low flyovers by military aircraft that flushed sensitive birds. In that letter, CDFW and SLC emphasized that sound pollution and low overhead flights posed a threat to birds and other wildlife. CDFW also provided the City with comments during the public review period for the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for this Project, in a letter dated March 4, 2024

3. At that time, CDFW again
voiced concerns about impacts to BCER and the sensitive species therein. CDFW attaches those prior communications because they remain relevant and applicable to the Project and the DEIR.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

COMMENT # 1: General Disclosure and Mitigation of Impacts to Biological Resources
Issue: The DEIR does not provide a clear, full disclosure and analysis of potentially significant impacts to biological resources, nor does it include mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant.

Specific Impact: Without a full disclosure and analysis of the Project’s effect on biological resources, including mitigation measures in a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan (MMRP), the Project is very likely to have significant adverse effects on special status species due to the Project occurring during bird nesting season, or aircraft flying over BCER (either during or outside of bird nesting season). Furthermore, without robust avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, the Project as described will interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, and impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Why impact would occur: The DEIR dismisses potential significant impacts to biological resources by improperly relying on assumptions that certain activities would occur (described below), and improperly concludes that impacts to biological resources will be avoided. However, there are no actual measures or other enforceable

3 Available at: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/295302-1/attachment/t54ROc5yulkIGs6au1ip- fpXNsaQryPCQ5ToRpV_DiKthRZqPyWygsSIapUJ4vZFMtdAdmzc_Qd7TvU60

3-5
3-6
3-7
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 5 of 23 ends

mechanisms to ensure the DEIR’s assumptions would in fact occur, nor does the DEIR analyze and disclose impacts to biological resources that would occur in the absence of the assumptions. This contrasts with the requirements of CEQA and the DEIR’s own Approach to Environmental Analysis (DEIR Section 3.0.2) which states, “[t]he project- level analysis will estimate the impacts to each resource category before the implementation of applicable mitigation measures. The analyses will then estimate the impacts to each resource category after the implementation of applicable mitigation measures.” Assumptions relied upon in the analysis and for which there is no basis to enforce or otherwise ensure the assumptions are accurate include:
a. the Airshow would not be scheduled during bird breeding season – it is improper to assume this because the Project proponent has discretion to determine when the Airshow would occur per the Settlement;
b. the Project proponent would provide daily formal briefings each day of the Airshow to all pilots about the sensitivity of BCER – it is improper to assume this because there is nothing in the DEIR that contemplates this as an enforceable measure, nor is there any other information in the DEIR that indicates the City can require this measure;
c. the Project proponent would request avoidance of overflights over BCER – it is improper to assume this because there is nothing in the DEIR that contemplates this as an enforceable measure, nor is there anything else provided to the public that would indicate the City can require this measure, moreover, it is not up to the City or the Project proponent to finalize flight paths because, according to the DEIR, the FAA has ultimate authority over flight paths; d. when overflights of the BCER cannot be avoided, the Project proponent would request that overflights occur at 1,000 feet above ground level or above – it is improper to assume this because there is nothing in the DEIR that contemplates this as an enforceable measure, nor is there anything else provided to the public that would indicate the City can require this measure; and e. because pilots could be instructed by the FAA to fly over the BCER, pre-activity surveys and biological monitoring would 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 - it is improper to assume this because there is nothing in the DEIR that contemplates this as an enforceable measure, nor is there anything else provided to the public that would indicate the City can require this measure.

As mentioned above, there is no information in the DEIR to indicate that these assumptions can be relied upon to reduce or otherwise avoid potentially significant effects. This is especially the case because the City appears to have no control over the Project proponent’s implementation of the Project in accordance with the assumptions either due to the Settlement or the lack of any information in the DEIR to indicate the enforceability of such measures. Specifically, it is not clear within the context of the Settlement and Air Show Event Agreement requirement if the Project proponent will be

3-7
(cont.)
3-8
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 6 of 23 ends

required to abide by the assumptions, or how the City will enforce the assumptions.

Section 2.b. of the Settlement states, in part, that the Air Show Event Agreement, “will be based on, and supported by, the completed aforementioned CEQA environmental review, and consistent with the terms of the [Settlement].” Because the Air Show Event Agreement will be based on this environmental review, the City should commit to requiring the assumptions as mitigation measures and ensure they are included in the Air Show Event Agreement so that the Airshow is required to implement them.

Nevertheless, because Project elements like flight path are outside the City and Project Proponent’s control, the Project’s potentially significant impacts to biological resources should be analyzed in the DEIR without reliance on the assumptions. Without disclosure, analysis, and mitigation, the Project could result in significant adverse effects to sensitive nesting, overwintering, migrating, and resident bird species due to the Project occurring during bird nesting season or aircraft flying over BCER (either during or outside of bird nesting season).

Evidence impact may be significant: The DEIR should provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the significant effects which the Project may have on the environment (Pub. Resources Code, § 20161; CEQA Guidelines, § 15151).

Such disclosure is necessary so CDFW, the public, and decisionmakers may provide comments on the adequacy of proposed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures, as well as assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the environment, in particular plant and wildlife species impacted for CDFW (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity). Furthermore, unlike the assumptions discussion in the Biological Resources section of the DEIR, mitigation measures should be memorialized in a MMRP table and written so as to be enforceable (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4). Finally, absent real avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, impacts to listed species would also be considered significant pursuant to CESA and/or the federal Endangered Species Act.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Recommendation #1: Revised analysis. CDFW strongly recommends that the City revise its discussion and analysis of impacts to biological resources, and provides mechanisms to enforce all the assumptions outlined above. If the City cannot enforce the assumptions, then the Biological Resources impact analysis should be based on the Project as it would occur without those assumptions in place (e.g., assess impacts associated with the Project occurring during the bird nesting season, assess impacts with aircraft flying over BCER, etc.). This analysis should include compensatory mitigation for significant impacts as appropriate. If the City asserts that the assumptions are enforceable, then the City should provide evidence as to how the assumptions would be enforceable, the assumptions should be rewritten as enforceable mitigation measures, and be included in the DEIR’s MMRP table.

3-8
(cont.)
3-9
3-10
3-11
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 7 of 23 ends

COMMENT # 2: Nesting Bird Disturbance
Issue: Impacts to nesting birds, including fully protected, CESA-listed, and ESA-listed species, are likely to be significant due to the lack of any enforceable mechanism for the City to control when the Airshow will be held, and no stated enforceable mitigation.

Specific Impact: Because of the Settlement, there does not appear to be any mechanism for the City to restrict the timing of the Airshow to outside the breeding season. The DEIR relies on the assumption that the Airshow will be scheduled outside the bird breeding season; however, the Settlement indicates that the Project proponent has the right and ability to select the dates for future Airshows, including during important nesting periods for light-footed Ridgway’s rail, California least tern, and western snowy plover, as well as a wide variety of common bird species. As detailed in this letter, holding the Airshow during the bird nesting season is likely to result in significant effects to all, or a combination of, the birds identified in the Biological Setting section of this letter.

Why impact would occur: In discussing the potential of the Project to affect birds, the DEIR acknowledges that special-status birds are known to occur in the area and use the beaches and coastal marshes for nesting. The DEIR also indicates that there are breeding sites for California least terns and western snowy plovers that are fenced off from public access. The DEIR does not, however, acknowledge that California least terns and western snowy plovers have also been observed nesting outside the confines of those fenced areas, nor does it discuss other special-status bird species that nest on the beach or in the coastal wetlands. The areas surrounding the show center area, including Huntington Beach, BCER, and other coastal wetlands, are vital habitats for a variety of native species. As the largest coastal wetland remaining in California, BCER supports a heavy concentration of breeding birds.

Because of the ground-nesting behaviors of these species, disturbance of nesting due to Project implementation is prevalent. For example, disturbance from aircraft overflights, fireworks, vehicles, pedestrians, and even blowing trash can result in flushing of nesting birds, increased predation, crushing of eggs, reduced fitness of chicks, and decreases in reproductive success (Jefferson, et al. 2022). Individually, or in combination, the aforementioned impacts can result in significant effects to individual birds as well as a bird population as a whole. For example, California least terns, like many colonial ground nesting birds, rely on coordinated attacks, or mobbing behavior to protect their nests from predators (Jefferson, et al. 2022). In other words, the entire tern colony will react together to resolve a threat. Flushing birds from their nests leaves eggs and chicks vulnerable to thermal exposure and to predators that can take advantage of the parents’ absence to prey on eggs and chicks and decimate a nesting site in a short amount of time. Repeated flushing can cause nest abandonment. Therefore, an aircraft or individual/spectator could result in a colony leaving their nests resulting in impacts associated with such flushing.

3-12
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 8 of 23 ends

Another example of the Project likely resulting in a significant effect on nesting birds involves Western snowy plovers. While not colonial, Western snowy plovers frequently nest within or near tern colonies, and can exhibit increased reproductive success because of the defensive behaviors of terns (Powell 2001). While many different factors combine to influence the reproductive success of birds, nest abandonment remains a primary concern and the Airshow is likely to result in such abandonment if it occurs during the nesting season.

In their 2024 review of California least tern activity at Huntington State Beach (Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy 2024), the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy stated:

Overall, since 2008, abandonment has been the major cause of nest loss at this colony. Human disturbance is most likely a major cause for egg non-viability and abandonment which together accounted for over 50% of failed nests (36 nests/63 failed nests). The near constant flushing of birds from the nest reduces incubation time. Fourth of July celebrations on the beach cause disturbance at the colony. In 2024, a boat stationed at the river entrance adjacent to the colony set off fireworks. By July 9, the colony activity was depressed and the colony effectively abandoned. As in previous years, helicopters flying and drone flights over the colony caused the terns to flush from the nests. Paragliders launching from the Santa Ana River channel and flying low over the colony caused the birds to flush frequently in past years.

Although the aforementioned impacts are not the result of the Airshow, low flyovers by jets will have similar effects if they occur during the nesting season. As mentioned in this letter in Comment #4, although the DEIR seems to improperly discount potential impacts from the Airshow based on current activity by aircraft, even if such approach in the DEIR is accurate, which it isn’t, the DEIR should, at a minimum, account for the cumulative effect on nesting birds arising from the Airshow.

Another major threat to chicks is insufficient nutrition (Scopel and Diamond 2017). In response to disturbance, some birds may stay longer on the nest, which reduces the time available to forage for food for chicks. Additionally, birds may forage further afield than usual, in order to avoid heavily populated areas or aircraft disturbance, which also leads to reduced feeding of chicks. California least terns are particularly vulnerable, and experience significant loss of chicks in years with low fish abundance.

Depending on where in a species’ breeding cycle the Airshow occurs, disturbances can have varying results (Ellenberg, Mattern and Seddon 2013; Jefferson, et al. 2022). If the Airshow occurs just prior to or at the beginning of nesting season, birds may choose not to nest in the area at all. In the case of California least terns and western snowy plovers, the areas near the Project Site represent important breeding sites, with high density of nests. The closest protected tern and plover nesting areas are Seal Beach 3.75 miles to

3-12
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 9 of 23 ends

the north and Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve 6.75 miles to the south. In the absence of a suitable nesting site, an entire season’s reproductive effort could be lost. If the Airshow begins after nests have been established, disturbance could lead to mortality of eggs and chicks from nest abandonment, trampling by people or dogs visiting the Airshow, or increased presence of predators drawn to trash and parental absence. If the Airshow occurs toward the end of the nesting season, fledglings could be scared off before they have accumulated the necessary fat reserves to successfully complete migration to their wintering grounds.

Evidence impact may be significant: Least terns and light-footed Ridgway’s rails are listed as endangered under both the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are also fully protected under FGC section 3511(b)(6). As a fully protected species, take cannot be authorized by CDFW.

CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant.

Take of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish & G. Code §§ 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §786.9).

As mentioned in the preceding section, individual birds and populations would be affected by the Project during the nesting season. Nests could be abandoned, eggs and/or chicks may not survive, or a season of nesting could be precluded. By itself or in combination, any of these impacts are likely to be significant to individual birds or their population on either a specific or cumulative basis.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Recommendation #2: Breeding Season Avoidance. If the City is able to restrict the timing of future Airshows, CDFW recommends Mitigation Measure #1 (detailed below) be included in the DEIR and its MMRP table. If the City is unable to restrict timing, CDFW recommends the City include Mitigation Measures #2, #3, and #4, detailed below.

Recommendation #3: Compensatory Mitigation. CDFW recommends the DEIR include a range of potential compensatory mitigation options to offset impacts to nesting birds resulting from the Airshow. Options to explore include conservation and/or restoration of nesting habitat; funding for infrastructure work at conserved coastal wetlands to improve water circulation and habitat conditions; and providing funding to managers of California least tern and western snowy plover nesting colonies for ongoing efforts (i.e., fence repair and predator control). CDFW cautions the City that due to the various factors that could affect the resources, working closely with the Wildlife Agencies and other coastal wetland managers is critical to ensuring that the impacts of the Project will be reduced to below a level of significance.

Mitigation Measure #1: Breeding Season Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to breeding birds, Airshow activities (including set up and teardown) shall not occur between January 1 and September 15.

3-12
(cont.)
3-13
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 10 of 23 ends

Mitigation Measure #2: Nest Site Surveys and Buffers. The Project proponent shall engage a qualified biologist (familiar with nesting shorebirds and possessing all necessary permits) to survey the technical study area for nesting birds. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish a 300-foot buffer for CESA- 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 should not be entered. A qualified biologist may determine that additional buffer distance is biologically warranted.

Mitigation Measure #3: Nest Site Monitoring. The Project proponent shall monitor nest sites, including those discovered during the nest site survey and those permanently designated as nest sites (western snowy plover and California least tern nesting areas), during the entire run of the Airshow to ensure spectators do not enter nesting areas and trash and debris are not introduced. Trash and debris shall be removed by or at the direction of a qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation. The City shall work closely with CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) and other coastal wetland managers to determine local needs and develop a compensatory mitigation scenario to be included in the DEIR. This mitigation shall be identified in advance of the Airshow to address certain types of effects and then chosen for implementation after the Airshow to specifically address whatever effects that occurred.

COMMENT # 3: General Avian Disturbance
Issue: Project impacts to migratory and permanent resident avian species are likely to be significant due to the lack of any enforceable mitigation.

Specific Impact: Most aircraft are expected to fly 500 to 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) during their performances, and pilots could be instructed to fly over BCER on their way to or from the performance area. The impacts of low-flying aircraft on the bird species at BCER and other coastal wetlands are significant and should not be underestimated. Behavioral disruptions, increased stress, and habitat alteration caused by jets and other aircraft flying at low altitudes threaten the health and survival of migratory, resident, and wintering birds.

Why impact would occur: CDFW staff and other groups have had opportunity to observe the behavior of birds at BCER in response to overflights, including many instances where birds were displaced from the property or flushed. a. On September 30, 2021, military jets associated with the Airshow were filmed executing low flyovers over seasonal ponds and Bolsa Basin in BCER.

Approximately 450 individual birds were estimated to have flushed as a result of

3-13
(cont.)
3-14
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 11 of 23 ends

one such flyover. CDFW staff observed another low flyover that day that resulted in the flushing of osprey from a perch in Bolsa Bay.
b. After the 2022 Airshow, CDFW photographed streamers that had been dropped into BCER that resulted in flushing birds.
c. Subsequently, CDFW requested that for the 2023 airshow, no flyovers occur over BCER, and that no streamers or other debris be dropped over BCER. Hundreds of pelicans were disturbed and seen flushing after jets flew over BCER during the Airshow despite requests that such flyovers be avoided. d. Observations of flushing continued during the 2024 Airshow. Species impacted by the hundreds of individuals include brown pelican, black bellied plover, western sand piper, and red-necked phalarope. More than 20 western snowy plover individuals were also recorded flushing as a result of jet activity. e. Flight Tracker activity, taken by CDFW staff, documents continued low flyover over BCER, despite continued requests and requirements for avoidance. (Staff observations, electronically on file with CDFW)
Behavioral responses to aircraft disturbances add to the daily energy expenditure of birds. When birds are disturbed, they can react with altered behaviors, such as agitation or flushing. Also, a bird may exhibit no outward signs of distress but experience an elevated heart rate (Ellenberg, Mattern and Seddon 2013), increased oxygen consumption, and change in metabolic rate, thus disrupting the bird’s energy budget (Kempf and Hüppop 1998). Even outside breeding season, such disturbances can have a high impacts on the individual bird as well as the population. In the winter, birds may require more energy to maintain their body temperature. During the non-breeding season birds need to forage as much as possible to build up fat stores for migration, upcoming breeding activity, or harsh winter conditions (Kempf and Hüppop 1998). Birds that rely on BCER for food and shelter could temporarily abandon these habitats during the Airshow, leading to a loss of critical resources during key times, such as during migration or overwintering periods. This disruption can have significant consequences for their overall health, survival, and reproductive success resulting in significant effects to both individual birds as well as the population.

The proposed timing of the Airshow overlaps with the migratory periods for many species of birds traveling along the Pacific Flyway. As coastal wetlands are important stopovers for annual migration, aircraft disturbances in those areas will affect a large number of birds. Migratory birds rely on specific cues, including environmental factors such as light, temperature, and quiet, to guide their journeys. The presence of high- decibel noise and physical disturbances from aircraft can interfere with these cues, potentially delaying or disrupting migration. This disruption could affect the birds’ ability to arrive at their final destination on time, impacting their survival and reproductive success (Schummer and Eddleman 2003). It can also interfere with the birds’ flight paths, leading to potential collisions or forced changes in migration patterns. Noise and physical presence of aircraft may also affect the landscape and vegetation used by birds for cover and nesting. While the Airshow is relatively short-lived, repeated

3-14
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 12 of 23 ends

disturbances over time may lead to cumulative effects that alter the use of BCER’s habitat by avian species.

Many species of waterfowl and shorebirds also use BCER as a wintering ground.

Shorebirds rely heavily on BCER’s mudflats for feeding during migration. Western snowy plover winters and breeds at BCER and can be sensitive to even minor disturbances. Raptors, such as the northern harrier, burrowing owl, and short-eared owl that winter at BCER are particularly at risk, as they tend to remain in one location for extended periods. Disruptions can cause these birds to leave critical feeding or resting areas, reducing their chances of survival during harsh winter conditions. Resident species that live year-round at BCER may also be affected by the Airshow. Species such as the Belding’s savannah sparrow and light-footed Ridgway’s rail, which are already vulnerable due to habitat loss and predation, may be further stressed by the noise and disruption caused by the event. All the effects mentioned in this paragraph and the preceding ones are likely to result in significant effects to individual birds as well as their populations.

Evidence impact may be significant: CEQA provides protection for special status species, including ESA- or CESA-listed species, Species of Special Concern, and Fully Protected Species (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The DEIR does not provide an adequate analysis of the potential impacts to special status species, nor does it include mitigation for potential impacts. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to special status species will result in the Project having a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the Wildlife Agencies.

Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide an adequate analysis of the potential impacts to migratory patterns or breeding success of birds, nor does it include mitigation for potential impacts. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to migrating or nesting birds will result in the Project continuing to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory birds or with established migratory corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. These are all significant effects on birds and their populations.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Mitigation Measure #5: Monitoring of Bird Behavior. The Project proponent shall engage a qualified biologist (familiar with bird behavior and possessing all necessary permits) to monitor and assess the effects of the Airshow on bird behavior. Monitoring shall occur at BCER, as well as other locations where birds congregate and that may be affected by the Airshow. Monitoring shall include one or more days prior to the start of Airshow activities, to provide a baseline measurement, and shall continue daily until the end of the Airshow. Observations shall be made of bird behaviors and aircraft passing over the study area. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies to develop appropriate study design, methodology, and reporting (see also

3-14
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 13 of 23 ends

recommended Mitigation Measure # 8 below). If monitoring demonstrates a significant impact to nesting birds, compensatory mitigation as outlined in Mitigation Measure #4 will be implemented, and additional avoidance measures shall be implemented to avoid future impacts. The Wildlife Agencies shall be given the opportunity to review and provide feedback on additional Airshow avoidance measures.

COMMENT # 4: Flyover Disturbance
Issue: As analyzed in the DEIR, impacts to BCER as a result of flyover disturbance are not mitigated to below significant.

Specific Impact: CDFW disagrees with the conclusion that the Project will not result in significant biological resources impacts due to flyover disturbance. Analysis of these impacts in the DEIR is, again, based on specious assumptions as outlined in Comment #1 and not supported by evidence. In fact, it is contradicted by CDFW observations of prior Airshow activity. The Airshow will increase the amount of air traffic that occurs over BCER, Airshow-related debris could drift into sensitive habitat areas, and birds are likely to be displaced due to Project activities.

Why impact would occur: It is inappropriate to compare Airshow-related flyovers to existing conditions at BCER. The DEIR discounts the potential of the Project to impact biological resources because other aircraft fly over BCER, and points to operation of aircraft from the helipad adjacent to BCER (incorrectly identified as being located within the Ecological Reserve) to demonstrate that the airshow will not cause disturbance to birds. The DEIR includes Table 3.2-2, which lists Flight Aware aircraft flight observations within the biological survey area for March 11, 2024, to demonstrate “ambient overflight conditions”.

The effort to equate Airshow flyovers to existing conditions is uncompelling for several reasons. For one, the helicopter that uses the helipad next to BCER does not generally cross over BCER; it crosses the beach as it flies to and from an offshore oil platform. In addition, the pilot and CDFW staff coordinate successfully to adjust flight paths as needed to avoid flocks of birds that are loafing under the usual path or other unusual conditions. Second, on the day used in the DEIR to demonstrate ambient flight conditions, 17 aircraft flew over BCER. All but three were at or over 2,000 feet above ground level as they passed over BCER, and none were below 1,300 feet. This is in contrast to observed overflights during past years’ airshows, where multiple aircraft passed over BCER at low altitudes (i.e. well below 1,300 feet) and caused birds to flush (mentioned in Comment #3). Third, while birds may become habituated to aircraft that they encounter frequently, that tolerance will not extend to novel encounters with aircraft of the type that would occur during the Airshow (van der Kolk, et al. 2024). The reaction of a bird to an aircraft will vary depending on factors such as the species of bird, whether they are on a nest, and their familiarity with the particular aircraft. Differences in aircraft size, shape, speed of travel, altitude, and noise level will elicit differing responses. Some birds react strongly to the visual of hang gliders and parachutes, while

3-14
(cont.)
3-15
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 14 of 23 ends

some react to the sound of loud aircraft. For some species, large slow aircraft are more threatening than smaller aircraft (van der Kolk, et al. 2020). Some species react more strongly to helicopters than jets, some the opposite (Fuller, McChesney and Golightly 2018). A stimulus that seems to have a low impact to humans may be perceived by a bird as threatening (Ellenberg, Mattern and Seddon 2013).

Evidence impact may be significant: CEQA provides protection for special status species, including ESA- or CESA-listed species, Species of Special Concern, and Fully Protected Species (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The DEIR does not provide an adequate analysis of the potential impacts to special status species, nor does it include mitigation for potential impacts. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to special status species will result in the Project continuing to have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species by the Wildlife Agencies.

Furthermore, the DEIR does not provide an adequate analysis of the potential impacts to migratory patterns or breeding success of birds, nor does it include mitigation for potential impacts. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to migrating or nesting birds will result in the Project continuing to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory birds or with established migratory corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. All the effects mentioned in Comment #3 and this Comment #4 are likely to result in significant effects to individual birds as well as their populations.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
Recommendation #4: Flyover Impacts. CDFW recommends that the DEIR include measures to avoid, reduce, and compensate for impacts associated with low-level flyovers. Measures should clearly indicate that they apply to all aspects of the Airshow, including aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers, and that they apply to all types of aircraft, including parachutes, gliders, and drones. It should also be clear in the DEIR that the measures apply to aircraft involved in photographing the Airshow.

Mitigation Measure #6: Participant Education. The Project proponent shall conduct daily formal pre-flight briefings to familiarize all pilots with the sensitivity of BCER and other coastal wetlands. These briefings shall be held each day of the Airshow, including days with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers. The Project proponent shall notify CDFW of all pre-flight meeting times and allow the opportunity for CDFW staff to participate in the meetings. The Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW each day prior to the meeting in order to have the most current information regarding sensitive resources within BCER.

Mitigation Measure #7: Flight Over BCER. The Project proponent shall encourage pilots to avoid flying over BCER. The Project proponent shall inform participants that coastal wetlands, including BCER, are considered noise-sensitive areas, as that term is

3-15
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 15 of 23 ends

used in FAA Advisory Circular No: 91-36D4. The Project proponent shall encourage pilots to observe the voluntary practices contained therein. In particular, pilots shall be encouraged to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 feet above ground level when flying over BCER or other coastal wetlands. A copy of the advisory circular shall be included in the participant information package, and it shall be discussed at pre-flight meetings.

Mitigation Measure #8: Post Action Report and Coordination. Within 60 days following the Airshow, the Project proponent shall provide a Post Action Report to the City, the Wildlife Agencies, and other stakeholders. The report shall, at a minimum, summarize the results of the monitoring (see recommended mitigation measure #4 above), any issues that arose during the Airshow and measures that were taken as a result, compensatory measures proposed to offset any impacts (see recommendation #3 above related to compensatory mitigation), and suggested improvements for future Airshows. Upon request, the Project proponent shall meet with the City, the Wildlife Agencies, and/or other stakeholders to discuss the Post Action Report and any proposed additional mitigation measures that would further decrease impacts from future Airshows.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Scope of the Project. While alluded to in other places in our letter, CDFW requests that the scope of the Project be expanded to include, and that all mitigation measures apply to, flight rehearsals leading up to the Airshow. Activities that may have impacts to biological resources post event should also be included.

Bird Strike Hazard. CDFW recommends the City clarify the timing limits of Airshow flights in relationship to bird strikes. Currently, the DEIR says that no flights related to the airshow are planned to occur at night, so, “…the potential for impacts to aircraft from collisions with migratory birds are expected to be less than significant” (page 3.3-11); however, other places in the document say that there will be night flights, potentially as late as 11:00pm (page ES-4). The issue of bird strike with regard to the temporary landing area should also be revisited. The DEIR does not identify the methods that will be used to mitigate bird strike hazards for the temporary runway, but it does indicate hazing could be employed. CEQA requires that if a mitigation measure could, itself, have impacts, those impacts must be disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)); therefore, CDFW recommends the DEIR disclose the measures that will be required to mitigate bird strike hazards, analyze the potential impacts to biological resources that could occur as a result of those measures, and include them in a MMRP table. Bird strikes and any bird hazing should be included in the report mentioned in Mitigation Measure #7 in order to develop appropriate compensatory mitigation for the effects to ensure they will be less than significant, either on an individual, specific basis, or from the perspective of a cumulative effect on birds.

4 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/23156

3-15
(cont.)
3-16
3-17
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 16 of 23 ends

Results of Bird Behavior Monitoring. CDFW recommends that the City include the data and a discussion of past monitoring efforts, including methodologies and results, in the environmental document to better inform its analysis of the Project’s effects on biological resources. This includes data on the behavior of birds in response to aircraft as well as the monitoring that occurred during the 2023 airshow. Mitigation measures based on discussion of this data should be included in an MMRP table.

Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. CDFW recommends the Project’s environmental document include mitigation measures recommended in this letter.

CDFW has provided comments via a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan to assist in the development of feasible, specific, detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and fully enforceable mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6). The Lead Agency is welcome to coordinate with CDFW to further review and refine the Project’s mitigation measures. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has provided a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment A).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB website
5 provides direction regarding the types of
information that should be reported and allows on-line submittal of field survey forms.

In addition, information on special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities, should be submitted to CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program using the Combined Rapid Assessment and Relevé Form

6. The City should
ensure data collected for the preparation of the DEIR is properly submitted.

FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

5 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
6 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Submit

3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 17 of 23 ends

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jennifer Turner
7, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor.

Sincerely,
Victoria Tang
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Victoria Tang
Jennifer Turner
Kelly Fisher
Melissa Borde
Robin Madrid
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Carol Roberts, [email protected]
California State Lands Commission
Wendy Hall, [email protected]
California Coastal Commission
Amitra Spencer, [email protected]
Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]

7 Phone: 858-539-9109; Email: [email protected]

3-22
[
DocuSigned by:

Jatfl~
5991E 19EF8094C3 ..

Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 18 of 23 ends

REFERENCES
Ellenberg, Ursula, Thomas Mattern, and Philip J Seddon. 2013. "Heart Rate Responses Provide an Objective Evaluation of Human Disturbance Stimuli in Breeding Birds." Conservation Physiology. doi:10.1093/conphys/cot013.

Fuller, Allison R, Gerard J McChesney, and Richard T Golightly. 2018. "Aircraft Diesturbance to Common Murres (Uria aalge) at a Breeding Colony in Central California." Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology 257-267.

Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. 2024. "Activitiy fo the California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni) at ."
Jefferson, Camryn N, Marissa M Brown, Lianne M Koczur, Cortney E Weatherby, and Fallan D Batchelor. 2022. "Disturbances to Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) Colonies Along the Alabama Coast." Alabama Birdlife.

Kempf, Norbert, and Ommo Hüppop. 1998. "Wie wirken Flugzeuge auf Vögel? - Eine bewertende Übersicht." Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung. Summarized in English online at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/ln_3- 1_aircraft_effects_on_birds.pdf.

Powell, Abby N. 2001. "Habitat Characteristics and Nest Success of Snowy Plovers Associated with California Least Tern Colonies." The Condor.

Schummer, Michael L, and William R Eddleman. 2003. "Effects of Disturbance on Activity and Energy Budgets of Migrating Waterbirds in South-Central Oklahoma." The Journal of Wildlife Management 789-795.

Scopel, L C, and A W Diamond. 2017. "Predation and Food-Weather Interactions Drive Colony Collapse in a Managed Metapopulation of Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea)." Canadian Journal of Zoology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016- 0281.
van der Kolk, H J, C J Smit, A M Allen, B J Ens, and M van de Pol. 2024. "Frequency- dependent Tolerance to Aircraft Disturbance Drastically Predicted Impact on Shorebirds." Ecology Letters. doi:10.1111/ele.14452.
van der Kolk, H, K L Krijgsveld, H Linssen, R Diertens, D Dolman, M Jans, M Frauendorf, B J Ens, and M van de Pol. 2020. "Cumulative Energetic Costs of Military Aircraft, Recreational and Natural Disturbance in Roosting Shorebirds." Animal Conservation 359-372. doi:10.1111/acv.12546.

Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 19 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A: DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project.

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #1: Breeding Season Avoidance. In order to avoid impacts to breeding birds, Airshow activities (including set up and teardown) shall not occur between January 1 and September 15.

During the
Project
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #2: Nest Site Surveys and Buffers. The Project proponent shall engage a qualified biologist (familiar with nesting shorebirds and possessing all necessary permits) to survey the technical study area for nesting birds. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish a 300
-foot buffer for CESA- 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 should not be entered. A qualified biologist may determine that additional buffer distance is biologically warranted.

During the
Project
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #3: Nest Site Monitoring. The Project proponent shall monitor nest sites, including those discovered during the nest site survey and those permanently designated as nest sites (western snowy plover and California least tern nesting areas), during the entire run of the Airshow to ensure spectators do not enter nesting areas and trash and debris are not introduced. Trash and debris shall be removed by or at the direction of a qualified biologist.

During the
Project
Project
Proponent

3-23
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 20 of 23 ends

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #4: Compensatory Mitigation. The City shall work closely with CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the Wildlife Agencies) and other coastal wetland managers to determine local needs and develop a compensatory mitigation scenario to be included in the DEIR. This mitigation shall be identified in advance of the Airshow to address certain types of effects and then chosen for implementation after the Airshow to specifically address whatever effects that occurred.

Before,
during, and
after the
Project
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #5: Monitoring of Bird Behavior. The Project proponent shall engage a qualified biologist (familiar with bird behavior and possessing all necessary permits) to monitor and assess the effects of the Airshow on bird behavior. Monitoring shall occur at BCER, as well as other locations where birds congregate. Monitoring shall include one or more days prior to the start of Airshow activities, to provide a baseline measurement, and shall continue daily until the end of the Airshow.

Observations shall be made of bird behaviors and aircraft passing over the study area.

Th
e Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW to develop appropriate study design and methodology.

Before,
during, and
after the
Project
Project
Proponent
Mitigation Measure #6: Participant Education. The Project proponent shall conduct daily formal pre-flight briefings to familiarize all pilots with the sensitivity of BCER and other coastal wetlands. These briefings shall be held each day of the Airshow, including days with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers. The Project proponent shall notify CDFW of all pre-flight meeting times and allow the opportunity for CDFW staff to participate in the meetings. The Project proponent shall coordinate with CDFW each day prior to the meeting in order to have the most current information regarding sensitive resources within BCER.

During the
Project
Project
Proponent

3-23
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 21 of 23 ends

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure #7: Flight Over BCER. The Project proponent shall encourage pilots to avoid flying over BCER. The Project proponent shall inform participants that coastal wetlands, including BCER, are considered noise-sensitive areas, as that term is used in FAA Advisory Circular No: 91-36D8. The Project proponent shall encourage pilots to observe the voluntary practices contained therein. In particular, pilots shall be encouraged to maintain an altitude of at least 2,000 feet above ground level when flying over BCER or other coastal wetlands.

A copy of the advisory circular shall be
included in the participant information package, and it shall be discussed at pre-flight meetings.

Mitigation Measure #8: Post Action Report and Coordination. Within 60 days following the Airshow, the Project proponent shall provide a Post Action Report to the City, the Wildlife Agencies, and other stakeholders. The report shall, at a minimum, summarize the results of the monitoring (see recommended mitigation measure #4 above), any issues that arose during the Airshow and measures that were taken as a result, compensatory measures proposed to offset any impacts (see recommendation
#3 above related to compensatory mitigation), and suggested improvements for future Airshows. Upon request, the Project proponent shall meet with the City, the Wildlife Agencies
, and/or other stakeholders to discuss the Post Action Report and any proposed additional mitigation measures that would further decrease impacts from future Airshows.

8 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/23156

3-23
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 22 of 23 ends

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible
Party
Recommendation #1: Revised analysis. CDFW strongly recommends that the City revise its discussion and analysis of impacts to biological resources, and provides mechanisms to enforce all the assumptions outlined above. If the City cannot enforce the assumptions, then the Biological Resources impact analysis should be based on the Project as it would occur without those assumptions in place (e.g., assess impacts associated with the Project occurring during the bird nesting season, assess impacts with aircraft flying over BCER, etc.). This analysis should include compensatory mitigation for significant impacts as appropriate. If the City asserts that the assumption
s are enforceable, then the City should provide evidence as to how the assumptions would be enforceable, the assumptions should be rewritten as enforceable mitigation measures, and be included in the DEIR’s MMRP table.

Before the
Project

The City
Recommendation #2: Breeding Season Avoidance. If the City is able to restrict the timing of future Airshows, CDFW recommends Mitigation Measure #1 (detailed below) be included in the DEIR and its MMRP table. If the City is unable to restrict timing, CDFW recommends the City include Mitigation Measures #2, #3, and #4, detailed below.

Before the
Project
The City
Recommendation #3: Compensatory Mitigation. CDFW recommends the DEIR include a range of potential compensatory mitigation options to offset impacts to nesting birds resulting from the Airshow. Options to explore include conservation and/or restoration of nesting habitat; funding for infrastructure work at conserved coastal wetlands to improve water circulation and habitat conditions; and providing funding to managers of California least tern and western snowy plover nesting colonies for ongoing efforts
(i.e., fence repair and predator control). CDFW cautions the City that due to the various factors that could affect the resources, working closely with the Before the
Project
The City

3-23
(cont.)
Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
April 7, 2025

Page 23 of 23 ends

Mitigation Measures Timing Responsible
Party
Wildlife Agencies and other coastal wetland managers is critical to ensuring that the impacts of the Project will be reduced to below a level of significance.

Recommendation #4: Flyover Impacts. CDFW recommends that the DEIR include measures to avoid, reduce, and compensate for impacts associated with low-level flyovers. Measures should clearly indicate that they apply to all aspects of the Airshow, including aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers, and that they apply to all types of aircraft, including parachutes, gliders, and drones. It should also be clear in the DEIR that the measures apply to aircraft involved in photographing the Airshow.

Before the
Project
The City

3-23
(cont.)
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-74 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response to Comment 3-1
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 3-2
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 3-3
The Settlement Agreement and General Release,6 executed between Pacific Airshow LLC and the City of Huntington Beach on May 9, 2023, dictates (not contemplates) that the City will complete environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The commentor correctly describes the conditions of the May 9, 2023, Agreement relative to future Airshow events. No further response is required because the comment neither raises a significant environmental issue nor addresses the contents of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-4
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.

Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report, of the Draft EIR, evaluated the potential to occur for all of the species identified by the commentor, with the exception of the peregrine falcon, northern harrier, and short-eared owl. The Peregrine falcon, northern harrier, and short- eared owl were not addressed as they did not appear as an identified species in the five- quadrangle USGS topographic map search area of the study area, which included Newport Beach, Seal Beach, Anaheim, Tustin, and Laguna Beach.

Response to Comment 3-5
Refer to Response to Comment 2-19 for a discussion of the use of streamers. Refer to Response to Comment 2-15 for a discussion of the routine use of aircraft by the CDFW and oil rig operator as part of ongoing operations at the BCER, as well as the daily commercial and private aircraft flights that fly over the BCER. 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.

6 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf, accessed on April 24, 2025.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-75 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 3-6
Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 for a discussion of the methodology for the biological resources analysis. Further, the MMRP includes all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and also voluntarily includes Project Description features (e.g., biological monitoring) to ensure enforceability.

Response to Comment 3-7
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow.

Further, the daily formal briefings, which include a request that overflights over the BCER are avoided and any overflights, if they must occur, are at or above 1,000 feet AGL, and the biological monitoring before and during the Airshow, are included as part of the Project proposal and, as such, are included in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. These activities have occurred as part of past Airshow operations and based on the 2023 biological monitoring, no noise-related impacts to sensitive species (as a result of flyovers) nor were the presence of nests detected. Further, as previously mentioned, there is routine use of aircraft by the CDFW and oil rig operator as part of ongoing operations at the BCER, as well as the daily commercial and private aircraft flights that fly over the BCER, which also occur during the March to September nesting season; similarly, there is no documentation of biological impacts as a result of these separate aircraft activities. As such, the above-identified features are part of the Project, rather than imposed as mitigation measures, the latter of which would only be used to if there were documented potentially significant impacts. However, to ensure enforceability of the biological monitoring efforts, this Project Description feature will be voluntarily included in the Project’s MMRP. The daily briefings have and will continue to occur and the outcome of those briefings cannot be guaranteed; therefore, this Project Description feature is not included in the MMRP.

Response to Comment 3-8
Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 for a discussion of the methodology for the biological resources analysis. Further, the MMRP includes all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and also voluntarily includes Project Description features (e.g., biological monitoring) to ensure enforceability.

Response to Comment 3-9
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow. Refer also to Response to Comment 3-7 for discussion of the various Project Description features, which have occurred during previous Airshows, that avoid or reduce potential biological resource impacts. Further, refer to Master Response D for a discussion of the additional 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.

The Draft EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Project using the baseline conditions (as of 2023), which included baseline biological surveys and the information from biological monitoring that occurred during the 2023 Airshow, as well as the various Project Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-76 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

features that have historically been provided during Airshows (e.g., daily briefings and are part of the Project), as compared to the identified thresholds of significance. Further, in preparation for baseline biological surveys, a literature review was conducted that included a review of special status species and habitats with the potential to occur within the proposed project area. The results of the literature review and baseline surveys are found in Appendix D to the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-10
Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 for a discussion of the methodology for the biological resources analysis.

Response to Comment 3-11
Refer to Response to Comment 3-7 regarding the use of project features, as opposed to mitigation measures, and the enforceability of Project Description requirements. Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow. Refer to Response to Comment 3-9 regarding the method of analysis for potential impacts of the Project.

Response to Comment 3-12
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow.

Further, the commentor mentions the potential disturbance to California least tern nests as a result of the Project and also points to Fourth of July celebrations and paragliders launching from the Santa Ana River channel in past years. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the nesting season for the California least tern is from mid-April to mid-September. 7 Even the earlier
pre-Airshow activities would occur at least one week beyond the identified nesting season for the California least tern.

In terms of the western snowy plover, according to a document entitled Western Snowy Plover Nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California 2022 (Peter Knapp, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Rachel Woodfield, Merkel & Associates),8 “The recognized breeding season of the western snowy plover normally extends from March 1 through September 15.” In 2022, according to the above-cited document, “The first snowy plover nest was established on March 25, which was two weeks earlier than 2021. The last brood fledged on September 10.” Therefore, as with the California least tern, even the earlier pre-Airshow activities would occur at least one week beyond the identified nesting season for the western snowy plover.

Lastly, the light-footed Ridgway’s rail nesting season is mid-March to the end of August, 9 which
would also occur outside of pre-Airshow and Airshow activities.

Response to Comment 3-13
Refer to Master Response C for a discussion of the nesting season relative to the Airshow. The Airshow will occur outside of the nesting season for the California least tern, Belding’s savannah

7 California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed on April 23, 2025. 8 Microsoft Word - 2022 Bolsa Chica WSP Report.doc, accessed on April 23, 2025. 9 Light-footed Ridgway's rail, accessed on April 23, 2025.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-77 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

sparrow, the light-footed Ridgway’s rail, and many other avian species. No Airshow activities would occur between January 1 and September 15, as requested by the commentor’s proposed Mitigation Measure #1.

Because the Airshow will occur outside of the nesting season, there is no need for Recommendation #3 or Mitigation Measure #4, both of which request compensatory mitigation.

Refer to Master Response D for a discussion of the monitoring efforts, which address the commentor’s measures in Mitigation Measure #2 and Mitigation Measure #3.

Response to Comment 3-14
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. Also 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. Refer to Response to Comment 2-19 for a discussion of the use of streamers.

Response to Comment 3-15
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. Also, while the commentor provides conclusions about potential bird behavior resulting from operation of the Airshow, the biological monitoring conducted during the 2023 Airshow did not detect evidence of disrupted bird behavior.

With respect to Recommendation #4 (regarding flyover impacts), Recommendation #6 (Participant Education), and Recommendation #7 (Flight over BCER), 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. Refer also to Master Response D for a discussion of the additional 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.

With respect to proposed Mitigation Measure #8, there is no potentially significant impact for which mitigation is required.

Response to Comment 3-16
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.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-78 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 3-17
Section 3.2, Biological Resources, pages 3.2-40 and 3.2-41 of the Draft EIR fully addresses potential bird strike impacts, saying, in part:

Above ground, flights associated with the Airshow could result in bird strikes. According to a 2006 study, the majority of bird strikes (74 percent) occur within 500 feet above ground level (Dolbeer 2006). In addition, the FAA reported that 70 percent of bird strikes from 1990 to 2022 occurred at 500 feet above ground level (FAA 2023). The majority of the flights planned for the Airshow are expected to fly 500 to 1,000 feet above MSL and would only occur during the Airshow hours (historically between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM) and at nighttime, when bird activity is lower.

Response to Comment 3-18
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.

Response to Comment 3-19
The Project’s MMRP includes all identified mitigation measures, as required by CEQA, and also voluntarily includes certain Project Description features to demonstrate enforceability.

Response to Comment 3-20
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.

Response to Comment 3-21
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. However, any appropriate environmental filing fees will be submitted upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the City of Huntington Beach.

Response to Comment 3-22
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 3-23
Refer to Response to Comments 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15 for a discussion of proposed Recommendations #1 through #4 and suggested mitigation measures #1 through #8.

Comment Letter 4
4-1
4-2
4-3

CA LIFORNIA STATE TR ANSPORTATION AG ENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 12
1750 East 4th Stree t, Suite 100 I SA NTA A NA, CA 92705 (657) 328-6000 I FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711
https ://dot.ca.gov /ca ltrans-near-me/dislricl-12
March 27, 2025
Mr. Connor Hyland
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 90860
Dear Mr. Hyland ,

GAV IN NEWSOM, GOVERNO R
• •
tb/tmns ·
File: LDR/CEQA
SCH#2024020006
LDR LOG #2024-02750
SR-1
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Pacifi c Airshow Huntington Beach Project . The underlying purpo se of the Projec t is to provid e a spe ctacl e-scale airshow in Huntington Beach that attracts att endee s through out the Southern California area ( and perhaps beyond) and features civilian and military aircraft flyby s and aerial acrobatics, air racing , helicopter landing/runway displays compri sed of temporary acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) foundation (stadium flooring) rubber tracks , or wood or aluminum flooring , electric vehicle (EV) and drone displays with hangars and aerial competitions and drone shows, and displays of other emerging aviation/mobility technology , and visitor-serving entertainment , services, and amenities (e.g . Variety of viewing areas, vehicle and aircraft demonstrations and displays, illustrations, flight simulations , merchandise tents, concessions , food trucks, live music entertainment, wave pool surf competitions, skateboard and bicycle motocross (BMX) bowl competition s, sandcastle building competitions, art installations , and pyrotechnic shows). 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 .

The mission of Caltrans is Improving lives and communities through transportation. I Caltrans is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments:

1. Continue to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions that may be impacted with increases of vehicles along PCH and surrounding streets. Consider implementing temporary transit services such as shuttles and/or microtransit services to reduce VMT and potential impacts to air quality. " Improving lives and commun ities through tra nsportatio n." 4-4
4-5
4-6
Mr. Connor Hyland
March 27, 2025

Page 2 ends

2. Coordinate with the appropriate transit operators to encourage the use of rail I services and consider the first and last mile connection by providing temporary transit services directly to the event.

3. For any lane closures, traffic control sign placement, or activities occurring within State Right of Way, please submit an encroachment permit application package (EPAP) to the D12 Permit's lnbox at D12.Permits@dot .ca.gov as early as possible to avoid delays . EPAP should include application, PE signed and stamped site-specific traffic control plan, insurance, letter of authorizations as needed, and any other relevant documents. Traffic control plan should include any necessary detour plans and increased crossing guards for pedestrian crossings. If there is a proposed full lane closure of Pacific Coast Highway, liability insurance will be required, and this section would then be considered part of the event site, which requires increased police presence for crowd management . It should be noted that sidewalk vendors and alcohol consumption are not allowed with State Right of Way. Per submitted DEIR, flight activities are to be done outside of State Right of Way. If there are any changes and flight activities are proposed within State R/W, City shall comply with all requirements of Encroachment Permit Manual Section 516.9 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Caltrans UAS Handbook.

Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that I could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Maryam Molavi, at Maryam.Molavi @dot .ca.gov .

Sincerely ,
Scott 51~~17:05 POT)
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief- Local Development Review/Climate Change/Transit Grants District 12
"Improving lives and commun ities throug h transpor tation." PacificAir Show- HB- DEIR
#2024-02750 .Cmnt.Ltr.MM
Final Audit Report
Created:

By:

Status:

Transaction ID:
2025-03-28
Maryam Molavi ([email protected])
Signed
CBJCHBCAABAAE9D1 0M_Mlhs5mhr7 _revqXwGVo2o YjNE
2025-03-28
"PacificAir Show- HB- DEIR #2024-02750 .Cmnt.Ltr.MM" History 'E) Document created by Maryam Molavi ([email protected]) 2025-03-28 - 0:01 :43 AM GMT- IP address: 149.136.33.246 g Document emailed to Scott Shelley ([email protected] .gov) for signature 2025-03-28 - 0:02:02 AM GMT
'E) Email viewed by Scott Shelley ([email protected] .gov) 2025-03-28 - 0:05:11 AM GMT- IP address: 149.136.33.246 0'G Document e-signed by Scott Shelley ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025-03-28 - 0:05:38 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 149.136.33.246 0 Agreement completed.
2025-03-28 - 0:05:38 AM GMT
,.
. I Powered by
Adobe
Acrobat Sign
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-82 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 4: California Department of Transportation Response to Comment 4-1
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 4-2
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 4-3
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. At this time, the Applicant and City are not considering implementing temporary transit services such as shuttles and/or microtransit. 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 4-4
Rail services within the Project Area do not exist. 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. Also, refer to Response to Comment 4-3.

Response to Comment 4-5
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 1st 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, Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-83 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

automobiles, bicycles, or pedestrians beyond what has occurred for historic Airshows. For potential traffic control sign placement or activities occurring within the State right-of-way, the Applicant will submit an encroachment permit application package.

Response to Comment 4-6
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.

By USPS & Electronic Mail
March 28, 2025
Connor Hyland, Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 4th Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: EQCB Comments for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (SCH#2024020006)
Dear Mr. Hyland:

The City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) convened on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, at 6:15 p.m. to review and discuss the DEIR for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (Project). During this EQCB meeting, public comments were offered and the EQCB examined the contents of the DEIR. At the meeting, the Board members expressed enthusiasm and support for continuing the Huntington Beach Airshow. Below please find a series of comments from the EQCB, seeking clarification on the topics as described. These comments represent the input of the EQCB as agreed to by a motion of the Board, and are not representative of the City Council nor community at large.
x Unclear Project Description: Project description should include a better-defined Project area, including flight paths, what will be involved in the flights, what is landing on the beach, and more information on the itinerary of events for each individual day. Please clarify the definition of pyrotechnics.
x Noise Impacts: Please clarify noise impacts, especially as they relate to noise impacts in the evening up to 11:00 p.m. in relation to flights. What are the mitigations for night noise impacts for flights and what are proposed mitigations for flight noise? x Extension of the Event : Please clarify impacts related to the extension of the event to five days, as it impacts people during the work and school week with Wednesday and Thursday proposed to be included. Please consider how expanding the event creates additional environmental impacts such as within Bolsa Chica as well as other biological impacts of concern. Also, consider impacts to pets during that extended time period. x Bolsa Chica: Consider the impacts and mitigation to Bolsa Chica. x Alternative: Reconsider “Alternative 2” as it meets most of the objectives and continues the airshow in how it has been conducted within recent years. x Biological Monitoring: If there are going to be take-offs and landings from the beach, there should be a biological monitor to help mitigate potential bird strikes. x Streamer Mitigation : Please assess the impacts and provide mitigation for use of streamers.

Comment Letter 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
I
I
l I
I
I
I

City of Seal Beach
Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project
March 28, 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR for the City of Huntington Beach’s consideration. For reference, the ent ire EQCB discussion may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5RZJiFW4RI.

Sincerely,

The Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board

Cc: Chair and Board Members of the Seal Beach EQCB
Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Seal Beach
Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager
Iris Lee, Public Works Director
Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
5-9
I
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-86 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 5: City of Seal Beach
Response to Comment 5-1
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 5-2
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 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 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. 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.

Also described in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-8, of the Draft EIR, helicopter and smaller civilian aircraft will be landing on a helicopter and aircraft landing/runway display (approximately 4,500-foot-long by 40-foot-wide) on a temporary landing surface to be generally located within an open area on the beach directly in front of the Main Hospitality Area (Area D) during the hours of the Airshow.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9, of the Draft EIR, pyrotechnic daily shows could be discharged from either aircraft or discharged from the Huntington Beach Pier or an ocean barge during the days and hours of the Airshow. Further, pyrotechnic nightly shows could be discharged from either aircraft (nighttime flyovers) or discharged from the Huntington Beach Pier or an ocean barge concluding by 11:00 PM each evening of the Airshow. Fireworks and pyrotechnics are addressed in Appendix B, Initial Study (see Section XIII, Noise, pages 3-44 and 3-45).

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, Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-87 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

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 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.

Response to Comment 5-3
Aircraft operations during future Airshows may temporarily exceed established noise limits, including during nighttime hours, as authorized by a Noise Deviation Permit issued specifically for the event. This permit grants approval for temporary deviations from standard noise regulations to enable Airshow activities. 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's standard noise thresholds by as much as 50 decibels (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 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.

Response to Comment 5-4
Pages 2-6 and 2-7, as well as page 3.1-20, of the Draft EIR, disclose that prior Airshows have been held annually in the City for 3 days with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow and that the future Airshows associated with the Project are anticipated to be held annually for 3 days to up to 5 days, generally Friday through Sunday or up to Wednesday through Sunday, with aircraft flight Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-88 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

familiarization and flight practice flyovers also beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. Thus, both the prior Airshows and future Airshows under the Project include aircraft flight activity as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow.

The noise significance thresholds are based on equivalent (typically hourly) and daily noise metrics. The Draft EIR provides an appropriate level of noise analysis and disclosure that is required by CEQA.

Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 and 2-15 for a discussion on impacts related to the BCER and Master Response D for a discussion on biological monitoring.

Response to Comment 5-5
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 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 altitude 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 possess authority to restrict such activities.

As such, biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project, at least one day prior to the pre-Airshow activities as well as during the operation of the Airshow to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and that no Airshow-related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-89 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Refer to Response to Comment 1-3 and 2-15 for a discussion on impacts related to the BCER, Master Response A for a discussion on how flights are determined, and Master Response D for a discussion on biological monitoring. 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 5-6
As described in Chapter 4, Alternatives, page 4-10, the 2023 Airshow Alternative (Alternative 2) 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 or to the extent the Project would:
• 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 5-7
Biological monitoring is being implemented during take-offs and landings under Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 in Section 3.3, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 3.3-12, of the Draft EIR.

Also, refer to Master Response D for a discussion on biological monitoring.

Response to Comment 5-8
Refer to Response to Comment 2-19.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-90 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 5-9
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.

Dear Mr. Hyland:

The Bolsa Chica Conservancy (BCC) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide services that inspire and connect all generations through community involvement and leadership in hands-on restoration and education in wetland science, watersheds, coastal ecology, and environmental sustainability. These efforts are focused on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve (BCER), the largest coastal wetland in the Huntington Beach area and a gem of our state, region and city.

We have read the NOP for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach, although we do not object to the airshow and the benefit to our community we submit the following comments. (1) We are concerned that the noise and vibrations a ssociated with aircraft flying at low elevations over BCER could harm the wildlife species that are so iconic and important to the wetland ecosystem and the surrounding community. BCER is located north of the “Project Area” shown in the NOP yet it has experienced impacts in the past with significant noise impact on wildlife. (2) The NOP acknowledges the need for an EIR to examine impacts but does not appear to include areas that are not immediately adjacent to the project area. Thus, the EIR as proposed would not include impacts to BCER.
(3) We would like to see additional discussion of mi tigation measures, including avoiding the nesting season at BCER avoiding flights at low elevations over BCER, that prioritize minimizing noise and vibration in BCER during the Pacific Airshow. The US Fish and Wildlife Service as well as CA Department of Fish and Wildlife can provide many resources about such mitigation mechanisms that align with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines.

Thus, we feel the potential impacts to the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve should be considered in the EIR with mitigation measures spelled out to avoid them. The Bolsa Chica Conservancy supports the expertise of the regulatory agencies, landowners, and managers to determine what is best for the reserve.

Sincerely,
Bob Hoxsie
Board Chair, Bolsa Chica Conservancy
Comment Letter 6
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
Bolsa Chica
Conservancy Educate • Restore • Inspire
I
I
I
714-846-1114 J [email protected] •
3842 Warner Ave. 9 www.bolsachica.org (~;)
Huntington Beach , CA 92649 Tax ID: 33-0392527
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-92 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 6: Bolsa Chica Conservancy
Response to Comment 6-1
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 6-2
The comment noted that the BCER has experienced impacts in the past regarding significant noise impacts on wildlife, but no documentation or specific examples were provided. Impacts related to the Airshow activities are not anticipated to result in insignificant indirect effects to BCER or marine wildlife. Studies have demonstrated that while noise levels may increase during the Airshow, the affected areas are relatively small and unlikely to disrupt local or regional wildlife movement. Refer to Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report.

Additionally, biological monitoring and surveys have been conducted prior to and during the 2023 Airshow to identify potential impacts on bird behavior and to ensure no Airshow-related debris affects BCER or other sensitive ecological areas. Refer to Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report.

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. Also 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 6-3
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 safety factors considered by air traffic controllers which includes portions of the BCER. Biological monitoring and surveys have been conducted prior to and during the 2023 Airshow to identify potential impacts on bird behavior and to ensure no Airshow-related debris affects BCER or other sensitive ecological areas refer to Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report. Therefore, the Draft EIR addresses impacts to BCER regarding biological resources and noise.

Response to Comment 6-4
For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on mitigation, refer to Response to Comment 2-15.

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 will request that overflights occur at 1,000 feet AGL or higher. However, neither the Applicant Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-93 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

nor the City of Huntington Beach can dictate or restrict flight paths or elevation (i.e., altitude).

Because pilots could be instructed by the ATC to fly over the BCER, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project for one day prior to the start any pre-airshow activities (i.e., aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers) and for every day of pre-airshow activities and Airshow activities to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no Airshow-related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas.

Aircraft noise impacts related to the Airshow activities, including fighter jets performance maneuvers, are not anticipated to result in significant indirect effects to BCER or marine wildlife.

Studies have demonstrated that while noise levels may increase during the Airshow, the affected areas are relatively small and unlikely to disrupt local or regional wildlife movement. Refer to Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report.

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 6-5
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.

DĂƌĐŚϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϱ
ŝƚǇŽĨ,ƵŶƚŝŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƚƚŶ͗ŽŶŶŽƌ,ǇůĂŶĚ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌĞƉƵƚǇŝƚǇƚƚŽƌŶĞǇ
ϮϬϬϬDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕&ŽƵƌƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ
,ƵŶƚŝŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ͕ϵϮϲϰϴ
sŝĂĞŵĂŝů͗ĐŽŶŶŽƌ͘ŚǇůĂŶĚΛƐƵƌĨĐŝƚǇͲŚď͘ŽƌŐ
ZĞ͗ ZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽƌĂŌ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů/ŵƉĂĐƚ ZĞƉŽƌƚĨŽƌ ƚŚĞWĂĐŝĮĐ ŝƌƐŚŽǁ,ƵŶƟŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ WƌŽũĞĐƚ͕^,ηϮϬϮϰϬϮϬϬϬϲ
ĞĂƌŝƚǇŽĨ,ƵŶƟŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ͗
ŵŝŐŽƐĚĞŽůƐĂŚŝĐĂŝƐĂůŽŶŐͲƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƟŽŶďĂƐĞĚŝŶ,ƵŶƟŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽůƐĂŚŝĐĂ
ĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ;
ZͿ͘tĞŚĂǀĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞ ƌĂŌ
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂů
/ŵƉĂĐƚZĞƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĞWĂĐŝĮĐŝƌƐŚŽǁ,ƵŶƟŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ WƌŽũĞĐƚ͘,ĞƌĞĂƌĞŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͗ dŚĞ
/ZĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŶĂƌďŝƚƌĂƌǇǌŽŶĞƚĞƌŵĞĚƚŚĞƌĞĂŽĨŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚĂŶĂůǇǌĞƐ ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨƚŚĞĂŝƌƐŚŽǁǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚŝƐĂƌďŝƚƌĂƌǇĂƌĞĂŽŶůǇ͘dŚĞďŽƵŶĚĂƌŝĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĂƌĞ ƐƵĐŚĂƐƚŽĞǆĐůƵĚĞŵŽƐƚŽĨƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞ
Z͕ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞƚŚĞĐůĞĂƌƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůĨŽƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽƵƚƐŝĚĞ
ŽĨƚŚĞŶĂƌƌŽǁǌŽŶĞŽĨĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ͘ dŚĞ
/ZŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶ ĂŵƵĐŚ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŐĞŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐ ĂƌĞĂ ĂŶĚ͕ĂƚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ͕ƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞƚǇŽĨƚŚĞ Z͘
dŚĞ
/ZĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨĂŝƌĐƌĂŌŽǀĞƌŇŝŐŚƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůĂŝƌƐŚŽǁ ĞǀĞŶƚ ŽŶůǇ͕ƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇ ƚŚƌĞĞĚĂǇƐŝŶĚƵƌĂƟŽŶ͘dŚĞ ĂŝƌƐŚŽǁĂŝƌĐƌĂŌƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĨŽƌĚĂǇƐŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĞǀĞŶƚ ĂŶĚ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞŽǀĞƌŇŝŐŚƚƐŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͘dŚĞ
/ZŶĞĞĚƐƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞĨƵůůƉĞƌŝŽĚ ŝŶǁŚŝĐŚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ
ĐĂŶŽĐĐƵƌ͘
dŚĞĂŝƌƐŚŽǁƚǇƉŝĐĂůůǇŽĐĐƵƌƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƵƚƵŵŶŽĨƚŚĞǇĞĂƌ͘dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨĂŝƌƐŚŽǁŽǀĞƌŇŝŐŚƚƐ ǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůǇŵŽƌĞĚĂŵĂŐŝŶŐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ŽŶǁŝůĚůŝĨĞŝĨƚŚĞĂŝƌƐŚŽǁǁĞƌĞƚŽďĞŚĞůĚ ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂǀŝĂŶďƌĞĞĚŝŶŐƐĞĂƐŽŶ;ƌŽƵŐŚůǇDĂƌĐŚƚŽ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌͿ͘dŚĞ /ZŶĞĞĚƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂ
ŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞǆƉůŝĐŝƚůǇƉƌĞĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞďƌĞĞĚŝŶŐƐĞĂƐŽŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƌĂŶŐĞŽĨĚĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞĂŝƌƐŚŽǁŵĂǇďĞŚĞůĚ͘
dŚĞ
/ZŶĞĞĚƐƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĞǆƉůŝĐŝƚůǇ ƉƌŽŚŝďŝƚƐĂŝƌĐƌĂŌĨƌŽŵŇŝŐŚƚƐ ŽǀĞƌ ƚŚĞ
Z͘
Comment Letter 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
AMIGOS
de

BOLSACHICA
P.O. Box 1563
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
714-840 -1575
[email protected]
www.amigosdebolsachica.org
I
I
ŝƚǇŽĨ,ƵŶƟŶŐƚŽŶĞĂĐŚ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
Ɖƌŝůϭ͕ϮϬϮϱ
WĂŐĞϮ

dŚĞĚƌĂŌ
/ZƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƐƵƌǀĞǇƐĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕Ăƚ ůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞĚĂǇƉƌŝŽƌƚŽƚŚĞŝƌƐŚŽǁĂŶĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝƌƐŚŽǁƚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵŝĨŝƌƐŚŽǁĂĐƟǀŝƚǇ ŝƐŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐďŝƌĚďĞŚĂǀŝŽƌ ͘dŚĞ
/ZŵƵƐƚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůƐ͘

/ŶŝƚƐĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŶŽŝƐĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶďŝƌĚƐ͕ĂƐƚƵĚǇĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝŶůĂƐŬĂŝƐĐŝƚĞĚĂƐ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŝŶŝŵĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘dŚĞĚƌĂŌ
/ZĂƐƐƵŵĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂƐŬĂĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚ
ŽŶďŝƌĚƐĂƚ
ZǁŝůůďĞƐŝŵŝůĂƌ͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĚŝīĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞďŝƌĚ ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞƚǁŽůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘dŚĞ
/ZƐŚŽƵůĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŶŽŝƐĞŵĂǇŚĂǀĞ
ŽŶƚŚĞďŝƌĚƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚƚŚĞ
Z͘

dŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĂŌ
/ZĐŽŶƚĞŵƉůĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂŝƌƐŚŽǁǁŝůůĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽďĞŚĞůĚ ĂŶŶƵĂůůǇĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǆƚƚĞŶǇĞĂƌƐ͘ƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƉĞƌŝŽĚ͕ĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐĂŶĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ ǁŝůůĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘dŚĞ
/ZƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶƚĞŵƉůĂƚĞĂƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁŽŶĂƌĞŐƵůĂƌďĂƐŝƐƐŽ ƚŚĂƚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĐĂŶďĞŵŽĚŝĮĞĚŽƌĂĚĚĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚĨƵƚƵƌĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕

DĞǀŝŶ>͘EƵƩĞƌ
WƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ
ŵŝŐŽƐĚĞŽůƐĂŚŝĐĂ
7-6
7-7
7-8
I
I
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-96 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 7: Amigos de Bolsa Chica
Response to Comment 7-1
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 7-2
The Project area examines impacts along the proposed flight paths and a 500-foot buffer to encompass potential changes based on weather conditions, flight traffic, and other safety factors considered by air traffic controllers which includes portions of the BCER. 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 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.

Studies have demonstrated that while noise levels may increase during the airshow, the affected areas are relatively small and unlikely to disrupt local or regional wildlife movement due to the existing conditions of numerous daily flights by commercial and private aircraft and helicopter activity from which flights regularly operate over the BCER. Refer to Appendix D, Biological Resources Technical Report.

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 7-3
The Draft EIR does consider the potential of the Airshow to extend up to five (5) days. Pages 2-6 and 2-7, of the Draft EIR, discloses that prior Airshows have been held annually in the City for 3 days with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers beginning as early as Monday Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-97 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

of the week of the Airshow and that the future Airshows associated with the Project are anticipated to be held annually for 3 days to up to 5 days, generally Friday through Sunday or up to Wednesday through Sunday, with aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers also beginning as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow. Thus, both the prior Airshows and future Airshows under the Project include aircraft flight activity as early as Monday of the week of the Airshow.

Response to Comment 7-4
For a discussion on nesting season, refer to Master Response C. For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D.

Response to Comment 7-5
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 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.

However, because pilots could be instructed by the ATC to fly over the BCER, preactivity surveys and biological monitoring will be conducted each year as part of the Project for one day prior to the start of any pre-Airshow activities (i.e., aircraft flight familiarization and flight practice flyovers) and for every day of pre-airshow activities and Airshow activities to determine whether Airshow activity is impacting bird behavior and to ensure that no Airshow-related debris drifts into the sensitive ecological areas.

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. For a discussion of mitigation, refer to Response to Comment 2-15.

Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-98 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Response to Comment 7-6
For a discussion on biological monitoring, refer to Master Response D.

Response to Comment 7-7
The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (2019) reference was to examine the noise impacts from operations of similar aircraft and Airshow location. The paper does not address a comparison of avian species at each site but only the noise levels and how they are consistent with the proposed Airshow. Marine birds were mentioned because they react to in-air noise generally 10 dB higher, but the current Airshow indicates that the in-water noise would not be appreciably modified as there is not enough acoustic energy present at ground level. Therefore, no measurable affect will occur on marine species (including marine birds) or resources relative to increased noise as a result of increased jet fighter flight activity.

Response to Comment 7-8
The Draft EIR has prepared an environmental analysis for the Airshow that would include an event program for the continuation of the Airshow for up to ten (10) additional years beginning from year 2024 through 2034 as permitted by the City’s Specific Event Permit Process. For each year of the Airshow, the Applicant will prepare, submit, and seek approval of the City’s Specific Event Permit Application. No additional review is necessary.

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org 4/7/25

City of Huntington Beach
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Attn : Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney

Subject: Coastal Corridor Alliance Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project.

Mr. Hyland,

The Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) led the decades-long effort to protect and create a permanent public open space on the 400-acre Banning Ranch property. In December 2022, escrow closed on a conservation transaction, permanently protecting 387 acres of Banning Ranch. The $97 million real estate deal was negotiated and completed by The Trust for Public Land and made possible by an extremely generous private donation from Frank and Joan Randall. The title of the property was immediately transferred to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, a local Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that manages over 75,000 acres of parkland in Southern California. The property is now known as the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve (Randall Preserve).

In January 2024, BRC became the Coastal Corridor Alliance (CCA), with a new mission, “To protect biodiversity, foster community stewardship, and advocate for appropriate human access on the Randall Preserve and Santa Ana River Coastal Corridor.” The change in name and mission reflects our organization’s transformation into a stewardship role and indicates we have expanded our vision beyond Randall Preserve to include the properties of the Coastal Corridor from the Pacific Ocean up the Santa Ana River to Adams St. in Costa Mesa. This would also Comment Letter 8
8-1
8-2

COASTAL
.,_....,, CORRIDOR

ALLIANCE
• • •

P.O. Box 15333 Newport Beach, CA 92659 (949) 216-0880 CoastalCorridor.org include the Bolsa Chica mesa and wetlands and the Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy wetlands.

The CCA respectfully submits comments on the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project. These comments have been prepared by biological consultant Robb Hamilton and are in a separate attached letter. We believe that these same comments by Robb Hamilton were submitted during the Notice of Preparation phase of the review last year (hence the date 4/4/24). Yet, there is no mention of Robb Hamilton’s comments in the current dEIR. Therefore, Robb Hamilton’s comments are being resubmitted for the City’s responses.

Sincerely,

Terry Welsh, M.D.

President, Coastal Corridor Alliance

8-2
(cont.)
8-3
1 • • •
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
The Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project 3-101 ESA/202300046.01 Final Environmental Impact Report August 2025

Comment Letter 8: Coastal Corridor Alliance
Response to Comment 8-1
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 8-2
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 8-3
In the Hamilton Biological comment letter dated March 4, 2024 (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.

Costa Mesa First (FPPC 1332564), P.O. Box 2282, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 [email protected]
costamesa1st.com
(714) 549-5884
April 7, 2025
VIA EMAIL ONLY – [email protected]
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
2000 Main Street, Fourth Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project; SCH No. 2024020006 Dear Mr. Hyland:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the City of Huntington Beach’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Pacific Airshow Huntington Beach Project (“Project”) to be located in Huntington Beach, California.

Please note that Costa Mesa First sent a letter to you on March 4, 2024, in response to the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Project. Our letter, along with the letters from Fairview Park Alliance, and Hamilton Biological on behalf of Coastal Corridor Alliance, were omitted from Appendix A of the DEIR and many of the requested topics to be contained in the DEIR were not covered in that document. Our letter, along with the letters from Fairview Park Alliance and Hamilton Biological are attached hereto as Attachments “A,” “B,” and “C,” respectively.

Because of these omissions, the DEIR is deficient in many areas and requires revision. We are requesting that (1) our letter be included in the DEIR, (2) that the topics requested 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.

We also request notification of the availability of any future documents associated with the Project. 9-1
9-2
Comment Letter 9

COSTA MESA
FIRST
WorR.tVl-0 for Cl LLvCtble cLti:::l
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

The boundaries of the Show Center Area (as defined by the outline on Figure 2-1 of the DEIR) from northwest to southeast are 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. We note that for purposes of a biological resources technical analysis, a broader biological study area (“BSA”) was defined 1, which
includes the Show Center Area where primary on-the-ground events and activities of the project event (“Airshow”) takes place, but also extends beyond that area to reflect the potential impacts associated with civilian and military aircraft flybys and aerial acrobatics. The BSA does not, however, extend to Fairview Park, Talbert Regional Park or the Frank and Joan Randall Preserve (identified on all maps and depictions as “Banning Ranch,” its former name).

The DEIR indicates that the Airshow Performance Area (as defined by the outline on Figure 2-3 of the DEIR), 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 an unspecified number of large marker buoys placed in the ocean to 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 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”).

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.
1 Appendix D, Figure 2.
9-3
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

The Project expands future Airshow events in that they 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 DEIR lists 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 DEIR indicates the expanded Airshow would continue for an additional ten (10) years beginning in 2024.

We are submitting the following comments for consideration by the City of Huntington Beach (“City”). The DEIR is deficient because it either fails to analyze, provide accurate analysis, or delays analysis of significant environmental impacts, making it impossible for the residents of impacted areas such as Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and other Orange County cities to understand and meaningfully consider the issues raised by the Project and any attempts by the City to mitigate significant environmental impacts associated with the Project. Additional accurate environmental review of the Project is required under CEQA. Further, we have serious concerns about the limited notice area preventing public input. The engagement of the residents of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa has been minimal, so much so that the requirement under CEQA to inform the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage has largely been unmet.

1. Project Alternative.

The DEIR identifies the No Project Alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative, as it would avoid or reduce most of the potential impacts associated with operation of the Project. We understand that this does not meet the objectives of the Project, but the goals of the Project conflict with the City’s fiduciary duty to protect the public and environment. No alternative site was listed in the DEIR. Given the impacts of the Project, we urge the City to pursue the No Alternative Project and work with the Airshow promoter to locate a better environmentally preferred location for the Airshow. Alternatively, the City needs to scale back the Project to avoid as many of the environmental impacts as possible.

2. DEIR does not disclose that Project will violate the Public Trust Doctrine and impact Environmental Justice.

The Project is of regional significance as it will impact not only Huntington Beach, but surrounding cities, many with disadvantaged communities. 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. It is an area with public access and recreational use that cannot be denied to the public during the Airshow and is subject to the Public Trust Doctrine. Environmental 9-3
(cont.)
9-4
9-5
9-6
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 4 ends

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

Justice is 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.” (Government Code § 65040.12). The Airshow denies the public access to these public areas for the duration of the event, therefore violating laws of Environmental Justice.

3. The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality.

The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality. For 2024, the DEIR lists calculated that the Project’s daily operational air emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds would drastically exceed the applicable CEQA significance thresholds in an air basin already in nonattainment for ozone standards and fine particulate matter standards.2 We note that these are calculations and that, despite expanded operation of the Airshow in 2024, no actual study data was provided for the 2024 Airshow.

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 temporary CO2 hotspots that may have an impact when combined with traffic on nonevent days.

4. The DEIR concludes that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on an adopted emergency evacuation plan.

The DEIR concludes that the Project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. “[I]t is clear that the addition of a significant number of people to the City on a typical Airshow day will result in longer evacuation times for those already in the area (residents and employees in particular).3 The DEIR is deficient because it only analyzed the impact of the Project on Huntington Beach’s emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. However, vehicles travelling to and from the Airshow use roadways and freeways in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, causing traffic backup on those roadways and freeways, therefore, the impacts on the emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans of those cities as well.
2 Appendix C of DEIR.
3 Page 3-34 (Section 3.3) of DEIR.
9-6
(cont.)
9-7
9-8
9-9
I
Connor Hyland, Senior Deputy City Attorney
City of Huntington Beach
Office of City Attorney
April 7, 2025

Page 5 ends

City Council/Public Financing AuthoritySeptember 2, 2025

City Council/Public Financing Authority
September 2, 2025