CC RESO 2023-04
1784347.1
15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Specifically, the resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it is limited to the City's overrule of the ALUC's determination. The Housing Element Update has been independently reviewed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of August 2023. ________________________________
Tanya Doby, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Michael S. Daudt, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CC RESO 2023-04
1784347.1
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS )
I, Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk, of the City of Los Alamitos, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of August, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________________
Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 10
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 11B
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Study Session Item: Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination of Inconsistency related to the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos
SUMMARY
On January 19, 2023, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the City’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update to be inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
The City Council will conduct a Study Session in order to review information related to the ALUC’s finding of inconsistency. While no vote will take place at this meeting, it is important to note that should the City Council determine to override ALUC’s advisory opinion at a future meeting, it will require a four-fifths affirmative vote of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive information related to the Study Session Item; and,
2. Open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and continue the public hearing to a date certain for consideration of a resolution overruling the ALUC determination.
BACKGROUND
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) is an advisory committee established by State Law in 1969. (Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 et seq.) The ALUC is intended to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of civilian and military airports. For Los Alamitos, ALUC adopted a land use compatibility plan, known as the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”) for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (“JFTB”), against which land use and planning proposals are compared and evaluated for consistency.
Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) Section 21676(b) requires the City to submit General Plans and General Plan amendments to the ALUC for an advisory consistency determination. In December, 2022, the City submitted the Housing Element to ALUC for review. On January 19, 2023, the ALUC determined that the Housing Element was “inconsistent” with the AELUP due to the following two reasons:
1. The ALUC asserted that noise levels in the 60 to 65 dBA range at Sites 6 (4655 Lampson Avenue) and 10 (5030-5084 Katella) were too high for residential development.
2. The ALUC asserted that Site 7 (Laurel Park) was adjacent to the Accident Potential Zone or Clear Zone for the airport.
The ALUC’s January 19, 2023 agenda report is included as Attachment 1.
On February 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-04, a Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County Finding of Housing Element Inconsistency (Attachment 2). As described in that staff report and Resolution, the City made draft findings, based on additional facts and research, that the ALUC’s determination was not appropriate, because the noise levels at Sites 6 and 10 are consistent with acceptable noise levels throughout the City for residential land uses; and because Site 7 is one mile from the nearest safety zone boundary for JFTB.
City staff sent the Notice of Intent to Overrule Resolution to both the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (Caltrans), as required by PUC Section 21676(b), and provided them an opportunity to comment. Both ALUC and Caltrans provided comments, which are advisory only and are included in this report as Attachments 3 and 4.
On May 1, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) certified the City’s Housing Element, finding the adopted housing element to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law and capable of accommodating the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) (Attachment 5).
DISCUSSION
The following discussion provides additional information stemming from additional research, which has been ongoing since February. This has been undertaken in consultation with the City’s Housing Element consultant, a certified noise engineer with Rincon Consultants, Inc., (who provided a technical report attached as Attachment 6), staff with the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Executive Officer of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission.
As described above and in the background materials attached to this staff report, the ALUC determined the City’s Housing Element was inconsistent based on two issues: noise compatibility and safety. Each of these issues is discussed individually below.
Noise
In order to regulate the impacts of noise throughout the City, as indicated in the staff report of February 21 (Attachment 2), the City relies on its General Plan policies and the Building Code, which are all consistent with ALUC’s Land Use Plan. Specifically, the City allows residential development in areas where the noise levels are 65 dBA or less, based on Growth Management Element Policy 3.5; and requires that interior noise levels be 45 dBA consistent with the California Building Code. In order to assure that the City’s policies were not resulting in a negative impact to residents, the City consulted with a noise engineer
(Attachment 6), and considered other scientific sources of information that describe noise levels and their impacts on people.
Basics of Noise
Some basic information about noise levels frames the determination of significance relating to noise:
• Noise can be made by stationary sources (air conditioning units) or moving sources (street traffic).
• Noise levels are reduced by distance, and obstructions, such as buildings, berms or walls.
• Noise can be measured in several ways, but the most common measurement for noise levels in cities’ general plans is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the average noise level over a 24 hour period, which is weighted to account for the quieter noise environment which occurs in the evening and night time.
• The City’s acceptable exterior noise standard for residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL, or an average of 65 dBA over a 24 hour period.
• For comparison, typical conversation is about 60 dBA; a blender is 80-90 dBA; a leaf blower is 110 dBA; and a jet engine taking off is 150 dBA. • Continued exposure to high noise levels can damage people’s hearing and health.
ALUC Noise Standard
Although ALUC’s AELUP considers residential uses to be “Conditionally Consistent” in Zone 2, in which Sites 6 and 10 are located, it nevertheless finds the Housing Element inconsistent with its own policies. Based on ALUC’s analysis, the potential hazard is associated with interior noise levels, which must be 45 dBA CNEL in order to be acceptable. As described below, a reduction to 45 dBA CNEL is required and already established in the City of Los Alamitos by the City’s Building Code.
The ALUC standard is also consistent with the City’s, which already allows residential uses to occur in areas up to 65 dBA exterior, and 45 dBA interior. There is no evidence that the occasional overflights from JFTB result in excessive and incompatible noise levels, since by ALUC’s own findings, the sites occur in a Conditionally Consistent zone and do not exceed 65 dBA.
In addition, as pointed out in the Rincon letter (Attachment 6), other ALUCs have not included restrictions at all for the 60 to 65 dBA zone for smaller airports, such as the Torrance and Hawthorne Municipal Airports in Los Angeles County, and the Oxnard Airport in Ventura County.
Current Noise Environment in the City
Because of its urban environment, the City has high noise levels. Based on noise studies conducted for the General Plan, noise levels next to City streets where residential units already occur are higher than 60 to 65 dBA CNEL, as shown in the Table below.
City of Los Alamitos Ambient Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Noise Level
(CNEL)
Los Alamitos
Boulevard
Farquhar Avenue to Orangewood Avenue 76.1
Katella
Avenue
I-605 to Los Alamitos Boulevard 78.3
Cerritos
Avenue
Los Alamitos Boulevard to Bloomfield Street 71.1
Source: Los Alamitos 2015.
These are not the only areas where noise levels are higher than 60 to 65 dBA. For example, the area around Site 10 is fully developed with residential units, homes along Bloomfield, north of Cerritos have noise levels of 68.6 dBA CNEL, and homes along Los Alamitos south of Katella have noise levels of 76.0 dBA CNEL.
As previously noted, these noise levels are reduced by distance and obstructions, such as walls, landscaping and homes, so that the living environment in back yards, and within the homes themselves, are lower. These and other locations in the City experience higher noise levels than either Site 6 or 10 will experience, which ALUC predicts will be between 60 and 65 DBA, prior to mitigation such as walls, landscaping or building construction.
Noise Reduction
As described above, the City’s noise standard is that residential uses should not be located in areas where the noise levels are over 65 dBA, unless these higher noise levels can be reduced. These reductions can be made by using setbacks and walls, which can reduce noise by 5 dBA. Standard home construction will reduce noise levels by 10 dBA with windows open, and 20 dBA with windows closed. So a home which is adjacent to a street that generates a noise level of 70 dBA would reduce its outdoor noise to 65 dBA by building a 6 foot solid wall, and its interior noise level to 45 dBA by building with standard construction which includes air conditioning, allowing windows to stay closed.
Attachment 6 also provides a list, on its page 8, of a number of mitigation measures which are available to assure that noise levels are reduced.
The City requires the preparation of noise impact analyses for all residential projects which are located in noisy environments, to demonstrate that noise levels can be reduced to 65 dBA CNEL exterior, and 45 dBA CNEL interior. As described above, these studies can reduce higher noise levels through mitigation to meet these requirements, and would need to be prepared for Sites 6 and 10 as part of any entitlement process. Therefore, the City already has mechanisms in place to assure that any development, including development at Sites 6 and 10, will have an acceptable noise environment for residents who move into potential projects at these sites.
Noise Summary
The City’s already adopted noise standards and requirements for mitigation assure that the impacts of noise associated with airport operations will remain consistent with both the ALUC’s and the City’s noise standards. As such the ALUC’s finding of inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan is not supported and the findings for overrule can be made.
Safety
With regard to safety, the only Housing Element Site identified by ALUC as having a safety hazard was Site 7 (Laurel Park). The ALUC identified it as being adjacent to the north departure path of JFTB. In its response of March 28, the ALUC further stated that Site 7 is under the flight path (“pink line”) for the airport.
These assertions or findings, however, are incorrect. Site 7 is located north of the accident safety zone for JFTB, which occurs entirely within the airport boundary. Furthermore, it is not located under the flight path, denoted by the pink line, as shown in the graphic (also see Attachment 7 for a larger version of this graphic), where the park is identified by the red dot.
The ALUC determined that Site 7 was inconsistent because it represented a safety hazard – because it was adjacent to a Clear Zone in its January agenda report (Attachment 1), and because it was below a flight path in its March response to the City’s Notice (Attachment 3). In both instances, as shown above, the findings are incorrect; Site 7, the only Site identified by ALUC as having a safety hazard, is neither in the accident safety zone nor under the flight path for the JFTB.
Therefore, the ALUC’s determination of incompatibility based on protecting the public from safety hazards is not supported and findings overruling ALUC’s determination can be made.
Conclusion
As described above, the Orange County ALUC based its determination that the City’s Housing Element was inconsistent with the AELUP on faulty assumptions. The City has provided extensive background and facts to support a determination of consistency with the
ALUC Land Use Plan as it relates to both noise and safety.
It is also important to note that several issues arise if the City does not overrule the ALUC:
1. The Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) could de-certify the City’s approved Housing Element, because without the ability to effectively process and consider development proposals for Sites 6, 7 and 10, it can be demonstrated that the City has not identified sufficient sites to meet its RHNA. This could result in a number of undesirable consequences, such as:
A. If de-certified, the City would not be able to prevent the development of high-density affordable housing projects even if the proposed developments are inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Code under the so called “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. This would not be limited to the sites identified in the Housing Element, but to any site in the City.
B. The City would need to find alternative locations for the 396 units assigned to Sites 6, 7 and 10. This would effectively upzoning other areas of the City for higher residential density that have already absorbed the remaining units that have been assigned to the City through the RHNA process.
2. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676.5, the City would be required to submit to all land use actions, regulations, and permits to ALUC for review and approval. This authorization extends beyond the Sites identified in the Housing Element and would substantially delay City processing of any land use entitlements or building permits. In effect, the City would be delegating its authority to make land use determinations to an outside body (see July 12, 2023 correspondence from ALUC, Attachment 8).
The Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Seal Beach recently overruled the ALUC related to John Wayne Airport and JFTB respectively after the ALUC issued similar findings of inconsistency. An action overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination would allow the City to oversee local land use development to the maximum extent possible while retaining its Housing Element certification from the HCD. Failure to do so is likely to result in de-certification of the Housing Element, and in the loss of state grant funding, exposure to increased legal challenges, and loss of local control over land use decisions and building permits.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. ALUC Staff Report, January 19, 2023
2. City Council Staff Report, February 21, 2023
3. ALUC Response, March 28, 2023
4. Caltrans Response, March 29, 2023
5. Housing and Community Development Housing Element Compliance Letter, May 1, 2023
6. Rincon Consultants, June 26, 2023
7. Site 7 Location Map
8. ALUC Correspondance, July 12, 2023
See the Regular City Council Agenda of
August 21, 2023, Item 12A for Attachments
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 11
Johnson Aviation, Inc. | 6524 Deerbrook Road, Oak Park, CA 91377 +1 (818) 606-3560 | www.jacair.com
August 14, 2023
Mr. Chet Simmons, City Manager
Ms. Windmera Quintanar, City Clerk
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Subject: ALUC Inconsistent Determination on 2021-2029 Housing Element Dear Mr. Simmons & Ms. Quintanar:
I am a professional airport planner who specializes in expert services on airport land use compatibility planning matters (See Attachmentsfor my professional resume). I have reviewed the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos (“Base”), Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), Amended August 17, 20171 ,
which the ALUC has failed to update to be consistent with State law. I have reviewed the January 19, 2023, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff report, recommendation, and action to find the City of Los Alamitos (“City”) 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (“Housing Element”) inconsistent with the outdated and no longer legally sufficient JFTB Los Alamitos AELUP. I have also reviewed the City’s Notice of Intent to Overrule the ALUC Determination (“Intent to Overrule”) and the subsequent letters regarding the City’s Intent to Overrule from the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), Division of Aeronautics.
The City’s intended overrule is well supported by the findings of fact and the Housing Element is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act2
. As such, it is my opinion that the City Council should overrule the ALUC’s improper finding that the Housing Element is inconsistent with the AELUP.
The ALUC staff report purports to document and support its determination of inconsistency. As explained in the Finding of Fact below, this determination is arbitrary and capricious. In fact, the ALUC consistency review instead demonstrates the Housing Element is consistent with the AELUP noise, safety, overflight, and height criteria.
The ALUC staff concludes that the Housing Element has residential opportunity sites in “proximity to” the Base “where there are none,” “places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise and concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents”, with no objective support in the record (See Exhibit 1). This larger, amorphous role in local and regional planning without an objective measure of consistency is neither identified nor supported by State law. Also, none of these conclusory statements are criteria for inconsistency.
Based on the ALUC’s erroneous view of its statutory authority and misuse and mis-application of consistency criteria, the ALUC staff recommended that the Housing Element be found inconsistent with 1 California Public U�li�es Code, § 21675(b) requires an ALUC to update its airport land use compa�bility plan for a military airport like JFTB Los Alamitos so that it “shall be consistent with the safety and noise standards in the Air Installa�on Compa�ble Use Zone (AICUZ) prepared for that military airport.” (Emphasis added.) 2 California Public U�li�es Code, § 21001 et seq., “State Aeronau�cs Act.”
ALUC Inconsistent Determination – Housing Element
City of Los Alamitos
August 14, 2023
Johnson Aviation, Inc. | 6524 Deerbrook Road, Oak Park, CA 91377 +1 (818) 606-3560 | www.jacair.com
the outdated and no longer legally sufficient AELUP. The ALUC Commissioners affirmed this recommendation, again with no objective findings in the record.
The following Findings of Fact summarize my review and findings of the ALUC’s action regarding the City’s Housing Element. Further, my independent analysis demonstrates that the City’s Housing Element is consistent with the AELUP noise, safety, overflight, and height criteria.
Findings of Fact - Los Alamitos Housing Element Consistency with AELUP Criteria 1) Noise: The Los Alamitos Housing Element Complies with AELUP Aircra� Noise Criteria. • The AELUP allows residen�al land use within the 60 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour with interior sound atenua�on to not exceed 45 dB CNEL and outdoor signage “informing the public of the presence of opera�ng aircra�.” • The federal and State standard for new residen�al land use near airports is a 65 dB CNEL exterior noise limit and a 45 dB CNEL interior noise limit3
.
• Two residen�al opportunity sites in the Los Alamitos Housing Element (Sites 6 and 10) are located within the AELUP’s 60 dB CNEL Contour. All other residen�al opportunity sites are located outside the AELUP’s noise contours (Exhibit 2).
• The City of Los Alamitos Housing Element, consistent with the City’s Zoning Code, imposes sound atenua�on requirements for new residen�al development at opportunity Sites 6 and 10 to comply with the federal, State and ALUC noise standards. • Of par�cular note, the AELUP uses outdated CNEL noise contours depicted in the 1994 Final Installa�on Compa�ble Use Zone (ICUZ) Study for the Base, instead of the most recent 2020 Noise Assessment completed for the Base. Further, the ALUC es�mated the 60 CNEL Contour in the AELUP from the 1994 ICUZ by extrapola�ng from that outdated 65 CNEL Contour “using a logarithmic scaling method and professional acous�cal-engineering judgment”. This is not a valid or accepted methodology for predic�ng aircra� noise. The US Department of Defense requires the use of the aircra� noise model NOISEMAP to predict community noise exposure4 and has done so for JFTB Los Alamitos.
• The Adopted AELUP does not consider the 2020 Noise Assessment provided by the Base, which is contrary to state law requirements. California Public U�li�es Code, § 21675(b) requires an ALUC to update its airport land use compa�bility plan for a military airport like JFTB Los Alamitos so that it “shall be consistent” with the safety and noise standards prepared for that military airport. • Using the 2020 Noise Assessment provided by the Base, only the northwest vertex of Site 6 is par�ally located in the 60 dB CNEL Contour (Exhibit 3) and would be condi�oned by the City to meet the interior noise standard. All other residen�al opportunity sites are located outside of the Base’s most recent noise contours. The 2020 Noise Assessment notes that noise sensi�ve land uses are generally compa�ble within the 60-65 dB CNEL Contour. 3 htps://dot.ca.gov/programs/aeronau�cs/airport-land-use-planning 4 htps://apps.d�c.mil/s�/pdfs/ADA310615.pdf
ALUC Inconsistent Determination – Housing Element
City of Los Alamitos
August 14, 2023
Johnson Aviation, Inc. | 6524 Deerbrook Road, Oak Park, CA 91377 +1 (818) 606-3560 | www.jacair.com
• Exis�ng residen�al housing surrounds the Base and proposed residen�al opportunity sites. 2) Safety: The Los Alamitos Housing Element Complies with AELUP Aircra� Safety Criteria. • The residen�al opportunity sites do not concentrate people in areas suscep�ble to aircra� accidents.
• None of the residen�al opportunity sites iden�fied in the Housing Element Update are located within any “accident poten�al zones” (APZs) or “clear zones.” In fact, the adopted ICUZ and AELUP do not iden�fy APZs beyond the Clear Zones for the Base (Exhibit 4). • None of the residen�al opportunity sites are located under any traffic patern, as per the 2016 ICUZ Study included as an appendix to the AELUP (Exhibit 5). Traffic paterns are typically used by aircra� when taking off or landing while maintaining visual contact with the airfield and for training purposes.
• The AELUP asserts that the 2016 ICUZ Study only examined aircra� opera�ons within the boundary of the Base and did not include aircra� opera�ons to and from the Base that might impact surrounding land uses and therefore dismisses its noise contours and other findings. This is a false asser�on. The 2016 ICUZ provides flight track informa�on for aircra� opera�ons to and from the Base and both the 2016 ICUZ and 2020 Noise Assessment address whether any land uses (on- and off-Base property) are impacted.
• Being in the vicinity of arrival and departure aircra� paths is not unusual or a hazard to people and other residen�al land uses are located near these same arrival and departure aircra� paths (Exhibit 6).
• As noted in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, aircra� accident data is the driving concern in determining the geographic areas around an airport that may be a hazard to people5 .
These geographic areas are defined as “safety zones” or “clear zones” or “accident poten�al zones”. The shape and size of these zones reflect the geographic patern of aircra� accident risks and subsequent land use policies.
• While the residen�al opportunity sites located north of the Base are in the vicinity of the north arrival and departure paths, this is not unusual or considered a hazard (Exhibit 6). Firstly, the loca�on of each track is approximate since the precise flight track may vary due to air traffic control, weather, and pilot safety discre�on. Secondly, these flight tracks incorporate noise abatement procedures, as per the 2016 ICUZ Study included as an appendix to the AELUP. • The AELUP does not provide specific guidance on density/intensity of land uses. For infill, it is suggested that the density/intensity allowed be rela�ve to surrounding uses, and that APZs restrict density and intensity (there are no APZs iden�fied beyond the Clear Zones at the Base). 5 htps://dot.ca.gov/programs/aeronau�cs/airport-land-use-planning
ALUC Inconsistent Determination – Housing Element
City of Los Alamitos
August 14, 2023
Johnson Aviation, Inc. | 6524 Deerbrook Road, Oak Park, CA 91377 +1 (818) 606-3560 | www.jacair.com
• Overflight means any dis�nctly visible and audible passage of aircra� and is par�cularly important for residen�al development. The primary method to convey informa�on related to property overflight by aircra� is through buyer awareness measures such as real estate disclosures. • To mi�gate the effects of overflight and noise, the Base has implemented minimum flight al�tudes, designated no-fly areas, closed traffic paterns, and specified inbound and outbound flight routes, as noted in the 2016 ICUZ Study and 2020 Noise Assessment for the Base. 3) Height: The Los Alamitos Housing Element Complies with AELUP Airspace Protec�on/Building Height Restric�ons.
• The FAA6 is the single authority for analyzing the heights of objects on aeronau�cal opera�ons. • FAR Part 777 is the regula�on that establishes standards for determining obstruc�ons to air naviga�on. It is the only regula�on and defini�ve standard available to determine whether the height of an object will be considered an obstruc�on or hazard to air naviga�on. • FAR Part 77 creates obstruc�on surfaces or “imaginary” surfaces to analyze whether the height of an object will be considered an obstruc�on and whether mi�ga�ng factors, such as ligh�ng or markings are required.
• The Part 77 Surface Exhibit provided in the AELUP is incorrect because it shows obstruc�on surfaces for precision approach procedures and the Base has non-precision instrument approaches to each runway. It is therefore even more impera�ve that the FAA analyze the heights of any proposed project submited as part of this Housing Element prior to drawing any conclusions related to poten�al obstruc�on impacts.
• The FAA is the single authority for analyzing project impacts on aeronau�cal opera�ons, this includes instrument approach and departure procedures (TERPS). • The City’s Zoning Code has height limits for residen�al uses at 30 and 35 feet or three stories in R-1, R-2, and R-3. The maximum height within Town Center Mul� Use (TCMU) is 60 feet. The horizontal surface is at an eleva�on of 185.5 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The conical surface eleva�on rises at a 20:1 slope above the horizontal surface and varies depending on loca�on. Based on the informa�on provided in the AELUP and Housing Element, the residen�al opportunity sites will be located well below the horizontal and conical Part 77 obstruc�on surfaces and would not create obstruc�ons to air naviga�on (Exhibit 7). This would be verified by the FAA comple�ng its airspace studies, and issuing subsequent determina�ons, which are ini�ated by submi�ng a Form 7460-1.
Airport land use compatibility around urban airports and military air bases is best achieved through thoughtful balanced planning by local jurisdictions guided by FAA regulations and guidelines and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The City has carefully considered this guidance and applied it uniformly to the City’s Housing Element and the proposed residential opportunity sites to meet these objective criteria and its State-mandated General Plan requirements. 6 htps://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/airspace_analysis 7 htps://www.ecfr.gov/current/�tle-14/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-77
ALUC Inconsistent Determination – Housing Element
City of Los Alamitos
August 14, 2023
Johnson Aviation, Inc. | 6524 Deerbrook Road, Oak Park, CA 91377 +1 (818) 606-3560 | www.jacair.com
The ALUC has failed to update the Los Alamitos AELUP to be consistent with State law. Further, the ALUC has twisted this outdated, no longer legally sufficient plan to manufacture an inconsistent determination despite the fact that the Housing Element opportunity sites comply with the AELUP’s measurable noise, safety, overflight, and height criteria. The basis for this arbitrary and capricious inconsistent determination is a purported larger role in local land use planning without objective criteria or evidence in the record of their claims.
State law provides local communities with the power to overrule ALUC determinations as both a check on ALUC overreach and a clear signal to the constitutional power of cities over land use within their jurisdiction. The City has properly noticed its intent to overrule the ALUC determination of inconsistency and it should retain its local land use authority by completing this process. The alternative would be to cede local land use control to the ALUC for all plans and permits within the City to an agency that rarely meets and is ill-equipped to process these types of cases.
In closing, we request that you provide this letter and attachments to the members of the City Council and Planning Commission, and Director of Development Services and City Attorney for their information as the City considers this matter.
Sincerely,
Nick Johnson
Johnson Aviation, Inc.
Cc: Los Alamitos City Council
Los Alamitos Planning Commission
Ron Noda, Director, Development Services
Michael S. Daudt, City Attorney
Attachments:
Supporting Exhibits
Nick Johnson Professional Resume
Exhibit 1 – Residential Opportunity Sites
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d
3 8
7 9
10 11
60 CNEL Contour
65 CNEL Contour
Exhibit 2 – AELUP Noise Contours
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d
3 8
7 9
10 11
60-65 CNEL Contour
65-75 CNEL Contour
>75 CNEL Contour
Noise Sensitive
Areas
Exhibit 3 – 2020 JFTB Noise Assessment Noise Contours
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d 8
7 9
10 11
3
Clear Zones
Exhibit 4 – AELUP Clear Zones
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d
3 8
7 9
10 11
Exhibit 5 – 2016 ICUZ Study Traffic Patterns
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d
3 8
7 9
10 11
South Traffic Pattern
22L/4R North Traffic
Pattern
22R/4L North Traffic
Pattern
Noise Sensitive
Areas
Exhibit 6 – 2016 ICUZ Study Flight Tracks
LEGEND
6 4a/4b
1 2a/2b
2c/2d
3 8
7 9
10 11
F/W Outside Traffic
Pattern
Katella Arr/Dep
North Arrival
North Departure
R/W Outside Traffic
Pattern
South Arr/Dep
7 Part 77 Horizontal Surface
Site 10 Elevation: 32’ AMSL
Residential Max Height: 35’
Total Height: 67’
Airport Elevation: 35.5’ AMSL
185.5’ AMSL
Part 77 Conical Surfaces at Higher Elevations
There is 118.5’ of additional
airspace
Exhibit 7 – Part 77 Illustrative Diagram
NICK JOHNSON
PRESIDENT & CEO – JOHNSON AVIATION, INC.
Nick Johnson is a Complex Strategy Advisor leading airport land use, regulatory, facilities and financial project solutions. He has over 30 years of experience and expertise in airport planning and development at airports of all sizes. His experience includes project development on airports, nearby and through‐the‐ fence by applying a broad array of expertise from business and financial analysis to airspace and operational procedures improvement. He does so as a collaborator with teams of all sizes to meet client needs and expectations. Specialties include lease negotiations, business strategy, facilities planning, ownership transfer, environmental entitlements, regulatory certification, security planning, real estate strategy and construction planning. Nick founded Johnson Aviation in 2004 providing leadership on high profile and contentious airport master planning and environmental projects.
Nick is working closely with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) on its Airport Development Program (ADP) to complete the long‐term redevelopment of San Diego International Airport. He is part of the Authority’s team to entitle a replacement to Terminal 1, develop airfield improvements to optimize the efficiency of the busiest single‐runway airport in the US and optimize landside access. He has also supported the Authority’s CFR Part 150 study update to reduce community noise impacts and improve land use compatibility.
From 2011 to 2018, Nick worked closely with the City of Ontario and the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) to transfer ownership and operation of Ontario International Airport (ONT). He worked with a small team to develop the strategic business plan adopted in 2013 that defines and guides the Authority’s mission. In 2015 and 2016, Nick led a large and diverse ownership transfer team to meet all regulatory, operational, financial, environmental, and legal requirements of the FAA. That team successfully transferred the ownership and operation of the Airport in 15 months. Johnson Aviation staff continued asthe Airport’s planning and development program managersfor 20 months during the staffing transition negotiating long‐term leases for the airport’s FBO redevelopment and for a FedEx Regional Sorting Hub relocation and expansion that is currently under construction.
Since 2017 Nick has assisted Google with the Master Planning and development of their Proposed San Jose Campus in the City of San Jose, California and within the Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), Airport Influence Area (AIA) in Santa Clara County California. The Google Campus has the potential to transform Downtown San Jose with many new and expanded live/work development options. By focusing on the expansion of the existing Diridon Station, the Google Campus will complete station infrastructure for the California High Speed Rail, BART and Valley Transit Authority systems. The project will both improve and potentially modify SJC air service depending on the various building heights and locations on the site. The total campus development is likely to exceed 10 million square feet of office, residential and retail uses that will be developed over the next eight years. The San Jose City Council approved the proposed building height plan in March 2019 and design of the project is underway. This work led to additional current assignments for redevelopment of the YouTube campus in San Bruno, California near San Francisco International Airport.
Property redevelopment and land use compatibility near airports taking full advantage of the airport economic engine is one of Nick’s unique contributions to communities near airports. Currently he is working with the Colorado Springs Airport on an updated airport land use plan to balance airport operations and the Peterson Air Force Base mission with unprecedented regional growth. Also, he is serving the City of Perris and various developers near March Air Reserve Base in Riverside County to both preserve and expand the vitality of the Base and its civilian cargo operations. He has worked with Boeing
Airport Land Use, Facilities & Financial Solutions Page 2 Nick Johnson, President & CEO, Johnson Aviation, Inc.
and their developmentsuccessorsto redevelop manufacturing facilities at Long Beach Airport, El Segundo, Seal Beach and Mesa Arizona. Other current airport land use compatibility planning includes the City of Goleta, City of San Luis Obispo and Mendocino County.
Nick worked with the FAA on updates and revisions to its key airport planning guidance documents. The FAA’s Master Plan Advisory Circular (AC) was revised and updated to address innovations and lessons learned in the field of airport planning. The FAA’s Airport Land Use Compatibility AC was completely rewritten to address the challenges of effective land use planning near airports to ensure the safe and compatible use of nearby land while maximizing the economic development characteristics of these surrounding areas. The FAA’s Solar Guidance document was updated to consider the most recent findings of solar panel glare analyses and the effects on safe air navigation.
Nick worked closely with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) to secure City Council approval of the LAX Master Plan entitlements that were ultimately approved in December 2004. He provided technical planning support to the legal defense team on the LAX Master Plan when it was sued in State and federal courts. Four legal challenges related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ROD were successfully settled in December 2005. Nick also facilitated a required review and approval of key settlement provisions by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Nick worked with LAWA and its consulting team in the early phase of a multi‐yearstudy of key components of the LAX Master Plan. Together, they crafted an approach in close coordination with airline and community stakeholders. This planning initiative by LAWA was intended to modernize LAX and expand regional airport capacity throughout Southern California.
Nick provided strategic guidance to a team of airport planners from HNTB Corporation on the San Diego International Airport Master Plan. This plan was developed to meet the immediate needs of the airport and airline community while the policy for the long‐term future of the airport was resolved. The Green Build terminal project was the first major plan component completed in 2013. As stated previously, Nick is currently providing strategic planning for the Airport Development Plan as the Airport Authority seeks state and federal environmental entitlements to replace Terminal 1.
Prior to starting Johnson Aviation, Nick was a Vice President with Landrum & Brown in the firm’s airport planning practice. He served as Landrum & Brown’s Project Manager for the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Master Plan. He led the way in developing a plan for LAX that balanced the needs of the regional economy while finding practical solutions for the local impact to nearby communities as part of a multi‐discipline consultant team. Nick also led various land re‐use and property development projects for Landrum & Brown at other major California airports.
Education
Master of Public Administration, Aviation Administration – Southern Illinois University Bachelor of Science, Aviation Management ‐ Southern Illinois University Air Traffic Control Internship – Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Flight Program– Southern Illinois University
Active General Aviation Pilot
Airport Land Use, Facilities & Financial Solutions Page 3 Nick Johnson, President & CEO, Johnson Aviation, Inc.
Selected
Projects
A wide array of
planning and
development projects
working with airports
of all sizes.
Los Angeles International Airport
- Master Plan Study
- Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report
- International Gateway Analysis
- Strategic Planning Analysis
- Airport Land Use Plan
- Stipulated Settlement Agreement
- South Airfield Improvement Project EIR
- North Airfield Safety Study
Denver International Airport
- Airspace Redesign Program for 32 new
RNAV arrival and departure procedures
- Aircraft De-ice Facility analysis and use
program
San Diego International Airport
- Airport Development Plan EIR and EA
- Airport Master Plan
- Environmental Impact Report/EA
- Airport Site Selection Program Phase 1
- Gate Allocation Study
- 1996 Strategic Plan
Ontario International Airport
- Strategic Plan
- Adaptive Property Reuse Study
- Master Plan Study
John Wayne-Orange County, CA Airport
- Settlement Agreement Extension
(representing the City of Newport Beach)
- Master Plan Update
Boeing Realty Corporation
- Long Beach Airport Commercial Property
Reuse Study
- Huntsville Alabama Commercial Property
Reuse Study
- Corporate Headquarters Relocation Team
The Boeing Company
- Douglas Park FAA Land Use Coordination
- Douglas Park Rezone Land Use Support
- Boeing Helicopter Aviation Compatibility
City of Phoenix, Aviation Department
- Airspace Feasibility Assessment
US Airways
- Philadelphia Hub Development Study
Miami International Airport
- Capital Improvement Program Verification
Chicago O’Hare International Airport
- Cargo Forecast
- Long-Range Strategic Forecast
- Terminal Development Program
Chicago Midway Airport
- General Aviation Tie-down Rates and
Charges Policy
- Privatization capacity analysis
Greater Rockford Airport, Rockford, IL
- UPS Regional Hub Site Location Study
and Implementation Plan
- Layout Plan for Air National Guard/Air
Force Reserve Units Relocation Study
(under BRAC)
- Passenger Facility Charge Application
- FAR Part 107 Airport Security Plan
- Annual Capital Improvement Program/AIP
Grant Applications
Capital Airport, Springfield, Illinois
- Layout Plan for Air National Guard/Air
Force Reserve Units Relocation Study
(under BRAC)
Dane County Regional Airport, Madison, WI
- Noise Mitigation Home Owners
Assistance Program
Chicago Executive Airport,
Wheeling/Prospect Heights, IL
- Eminent Domain Land Acquisition
Program (37 Parcels)
- Annual Capital Improvement Program/AIP
Grant Applications
- Airport Layout Plan and Report
Dupage Airport, West Chicago, IL
- Airport Layout Plan and Report
- Runway 1L/19R and 1R/19L Extension
Justification Report
- Annual Capital Improvement Program/AIP
Grant Applications
Aurora Municipal Airport, Aurora, IL
- Airport Layout Plan and Report
- Environmental Assessment for New
Runway 15/33
- Annual Capital Improvement Program/AIP
Grant Applications
- Layout Plan for Army Helicopter Unit
Location Study
Schaumburg Airpark, Schaumburg, IL
- Environmental Assessment for Public
Acquisition of Privately-owned Airport
- Land Acquisition Program Development
and Implementation
- Land Use Development Plan
Freeport Albertus Airport, Freeport, IL
- Master Plan Study
- Environmental Assessment of Runway
6/24 Extension and Widening
- Land Acquisition Program Development
and Implementation
- Installation of Non-Federal Localizer/DME
Elmhurst Memorial Hospital, Elmhurst, IL
- Rooftop Heliport Siting and Layout Study
- Expert Testimony on Rooftop Heliport
RotoCraft Partnerships, Ltd.
- Heliport Siting and Layout Study
Southern Illinois Airport, Carbondale, IL
- Southern Illinois Radar Coverage
Study/Simulation
Illinois Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics
- Illinois State Airport/Heliport System Plan
Airport Land Use, Facilities & Financial Solutions Page 4 Nick Johnson, President & CEO, Johnson Aviation, Inc.
Airport
Compatibility
& Land Use
Projects
Planning and developing
property on airports,
nearby and through-thefence for the highest and
best economic return to
local communities
interested in maximizing
airport proximity while
reducing noise impacts.
Los Angeles International Airport
- Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
- Overrule of Los Angeles County Airport
Land Use Commission
- Stipulated Settlement Agreement
including Los Angeles County ALUC
issues
Ontario International Airport
- Adaptive Property Reuse Study
Boeing Realty Corporation
- Long Beach Airport Commercial
Property Reuse Study
- Huntsville Alabama Commercial
Property Reuse Study
- Corporate Headquarters Relocation
Team
The Boeing Company
- Douglas Park FAA Land Use
Coordination
- Douglas Park Rezone Land Use
Support
- Boeing Helicopter Aviation Compatibility
- Boeing B717 Facility Reuse, Long
Beach, California
- Boeing Buildings S30/S31 Aviation
Compatibility, El Segundo, California
- Boeing Building S50 Aviation
Compatibility, El Segundo, California
AEG Worldwide
- Airport Compatibility Study and Land
Use Plan – Riverside County California
Airport Land Use Commission
Lee Homes
- Hawthorne Central Park Airport
Compatibility Study and Land Use Plan
– Los Angeles County California Airport
Land Use Commission
City of Perris, California
- March Air Reserve Base & Joint Powers
Authority Coordination on Airport Land
Use Compatibility Planning – Riverside
County California Airport Land Use
Commission
- March Joint Land Use Study
Coordination - Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission
- Perris Valley Airport Compatibility Study
– Riverside County California Airport
Land Use Commission Coordination
- City General Plan and selected Specific
Plan Updates based upon Adopted
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Kohl Ranch – Thermal, California
- Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Amendment
Study – Airport Compatibility Plan –
Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission
- Thermal Motorsports Park (TMP) Race
Track Plan – Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission
Thermal Motorsports
- Race Track land use planning and
approvals adjacent to Jacqueline
Cochran Regional Airport.
- BMW Performance Center West ALUC
review and approval.
- Specific Plan Amendment
Sanders Industries
- New Manufacturing and Distribution
Facility Aviation Compatibility Planning –
Long Beach, California
Xebec Incorporated
- New Manufacturing and Office Facility
Aviation Compatibility Planning – Long
Beach, California
Nexus Development Corporation
- Hotel and Office Facility Aviation
Compatibility Planning – Long Beach,
California
Sares-Regis Group
- Redevelopment and reuse of aviation
manufacturing facilities – Long Beach,
California
- Land use planning for manufacturing,
industrial, distribution and office facilities
– Long Beach, California
- Land use planning near March Air
Reserve Base – Solar Glare Analysis
- Land use planning near Chino Airport
- Land use planning near Ontario
International Airport
Los Angeles Meto
- Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor design
and construction planning through the
LAX Section
- Crenshaw/LAX Line Maintenance Yard
land use planning, site clearing and
business relocation support.
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
- Project manager for relocation and
consolidation of LAX-area facilities and
operations
San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use
Commission
- Update to the City of San Luis Obispo
Land Use and Circulation Elements of
its General Plan
- Airport Land Use Plan update and
revisions.
- Land use planning guidance and
strategy.
Google – San Jose, California
- Diridon Station Area Plan for new
Google headquarters and related
development
Oltmans Construction – Moreno Valley,
California
- Land use planning near March Air
Reserve Base – Solar Glare Analysis
Airport Land Use, Facilities & Financial Solutions Page 5 Nick Johnson, President & CEO, Johnson Aviation, Inc.
Technical Consultant, Litigation Support & Expert Witness United Air Lines, Inc., v. The City of Los Angeles
- Technical airport planning consultant, expert witness for defendant – deposition and trial Boca Airport, Inc., d/b/a Boca Aviation v. Proskauer Rose - Technical airport planning consultant and expert witness for plaintiff – deposition and trial Silverwing at Sandpoint, LLC v. Bonner County (Idaho)
- Technical airport planning consultant, expert witness for defendant – deposition and trial City of Ontario v. City of Los Angeles
- Technical airport planning consultant and litigation support for plaintiff – deposition and settlement Eagles Nest II, Inc. v. Chino Development League, Inc.; Celso M. Palafox - Technical airport planning consultant and expert witness for plaintiff – designated expert Dryden Oaks, LLC; and Durkin-CAC LOT 24, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority; County of San Diego
- Technical airport planning consultant and expert witness for defendant, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority – retained consultant and expert
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 12
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 13A
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Emeline Noda, Director of Recreation & Community Services Jennifer Sisoev, Recreation Manager
Subject: Los Alamitos Senior Transportation Program
SUMMARY
This item for Council consideration is the concept of a future senior transportation program.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Discuss need and desire for a senior transportation program; and,
2. Provide direction to Staff.
BACKGROUND
The City of Los Alamitos is a vibrant and active small city in Orange County. With a population just shy of 12,000 residents, the Los Alamitos older adult population has grown to an estimated
34.2% of residents aged 50 and over.
Staff has seen an increase in the number of older adult population participating in our programs and sees an increased need each year to offer additional transportation options to this high rising demographic.
DISCUSSION
In March 2022, staff completed a community survey of older adults in the Los Alamitos Community to gauge their wants and needs.
Surveys were distributed in-house through the Los Alamitos Senior Club, Dine-In & Dough House, Senior Grocery Program, and Senior Balance & Fitness. In addition, the Needs Assessment was shared with various groups and organizations such as the Katella Senior Living Community, Affordable Caregivers Inc, and Klein Manor Apartments, Seal Beach Leisure World, and Royal Oak Mobile Park. The survey was also created on Google forms and advertised on City social media accounts, website, and E-News as well as the Spring 2022 Recreation Brochure. A sample of a total of 100 responses were collected of which 56 were City of Los Alamitos residents. Approximately 11% of respondents indicated a need for transportation services.
In early 2023, staff conducted meetings to assess the feasibility of a senior transportation program with the following results:
• The Office of Senator Janet Nguyen and the Office of Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do discussed potential partnerships and/or support for the City of Los Alamitos to create a senior transportation program.
• The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provided information on grantfunded opportunities or additional ways to partner. Of the various transportation grant opportunities offered through OCTA, those geared toward seniors have a higher age limit requirement (60+) than desired for a potential City of Los Alamitos program (50+), or provide very limited funding to offset the cost of the program. • The City of Seal Beach and the Community of Rossmoor discussed a potential partnership should the City of Los Alamitos move forward with a Senior Transportation Program. Seal Beach currently has 1,300 registered riders for their program, which provides a hybrid shuttle service on a fixed route of service and dial-a-ride through Yellow Cab.
As a result of the previously mentioned 2022 Senior Needs Assessment in addition to the aforementioned 2023 meetings, staff developed the following structure for a potential City of Los Alamitos Senior Transportation Program to include the following:
• Medical and non-medical transportation for seniors aged 50+ to accomplish everyday tasks such as: grocery shopping, personal hygiene appointments, banking, doctor appointments, visits to local restaurants, and the Los Alamitos Community Center for social programs and health-based activities.
• An initial three-day service (with potential for future expansion of number of days) using a fixed route throughout the City including a minimum of six stops along the main corridors of Los Alamitos Boulevard and Katella Avenue, and a stop at the City of Los Alamitos Community Center.
• The potential to expand routes based on future needs and/or partner with the City of Seal Beach and Community of Rossmoor routes.
• Services provided through a contracted service provider which includes:
o One (1) driver
o One (1) vehicle
o Three (3) days per week, seven (7) hours of service per day o Preventative vehicle maintenance
• City Staff support for administrative duties including but not limited to vendor oversight, contract oversight, data collection, and report writing Based on initial estimates from transportation vendor outreach, the cost of a program of this design starts at $234,377 annually ($150,000 vendor estimate, $84,377 Staff administration cost). The first year of the program would see a cost offset of $33,617 due to conversion of a part-time position to a full-time position. If Council approves moving forward on planning this program, a formal RFP would be required and award of a contract and allocation of funds would come back to Council for approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
Senior Transportation is currently an unfunded program. The initial estimated costs of running a program of this design begins at $234,377 annually. Potential grants from OCTA could bring in approximately $17,500 to help offset the cost of the program. The remainder of the cost
would be absorbed by the Recreation and Community Services annual budget.
Attachment: None
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 14A
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Chet Simmons, City Manager
Subject: Council Member Requested Agenda Item: City Attorney Scope of Services
SUMMARY
During the April 17, 2023, regular meeting, Council Member Murphy made a motion requesting that the City Council discuss the scope of services provided by City Attorney Daudt. Council Member Hibard supported the motion. No vote was taken on the motion. This informational staff report is the first step in the two-step process for placing items of the Agenda for consideration by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the City Council’s adopted Agenda Policy, this informational staff report does not request action, but seeks Council’s direction. By a majority vote of the City Council Members present, staff may be directed to place this item on a future Agenda for consideration by the Council.
BACKGROUND
During the April 17, 2023, regular meeting, Council Member Murphy made the following motion:
"I would like to make a motion to have the City Council discuss the scope of services provided by Mr. Daudt to Mr. Les Johnson, and or any developers, builders or agents who proposed projects with the City of Los Alamitos during Mr. Johnson’s employment with the City of Los Alamitos as a Development Services Director and Interim City Manager from September 2018 to January 2020 as there should be deliberation and careful consideration as it appears that there is a conflict of interest."
City Attorney Daudt’s response to the motion is included as an attachment to this report.
DISCUSSION
The City Council’s adopted Agenda Policy allows individual Council Members to place an item on the Agenda utilizing a two-step process. A Council Member may request an item be placed on a future Agenda during Council Announcements. Once a request is made, the item is then brought back to the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting with an informational staff report (step one). A majority vote of the City Council members present is required to direct staff to place the item on a future Agenda for consideration by the Council (step two).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. Email Response from City Attorney
1 Windy Quintanar
From: Michael S. Daudt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Chet Simmons
Cc: Windy Quintanar
Subject: Council Member Requested Agenda Item: City Attorney Scope of Services Hi Chet,
In advance of the upcoming City Council meeting, and in response to Council Member Murphy’s motion regarding my scope of services, I would like to offer the following points of clarification:
My client is the City of Los Alamitos, acting through the City Council as its highest governing body. As mandated by Section 2.20.020 of the Los Alamitos Municipal Code, I routinely advise the City Council and all City officers in matters of law pertaining to their office; however, my client has remained at all times the City of Los Alamitos as an organization.
I worked with Mr. Johnson during his tenure as Community Development Director and Interim City Manager and in all such matters I advised him and other City officers solely in their official, City capacities. I never provided legal advice to Mr. Johnson as an individual at any time; not during his employment with the City, nor at any time since.
I have never advised Mr. Johnson about any professional matters where he was acting in any capacity other than in his official capacity with the City.
My legal practice is exclusively focused on public agency representation. To be even more specific, I have never provided any legal advice to any developers, builders or agents who proposed projects with the City of Los Alamitos.
Respectfully,
Michael
Please update your records to reflect my new email address: [email protected] 555 Anton Blvd Suite 1200
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Michael S. Daudt
Director
D: 714-415-1059
[email protected]
www.woodruff.law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE – This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
2 attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at 714-415-1059 or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 14B
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Council Member Requested Agenda Item: Citywide Trash Receptacle Project
SUMMARY
During the April 17, 2023, regular meeting, Council Member Hibard made a motion to bring forward an item to discuss reallocation of funds from the 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Citywide Trash Receptacles Project to the Police Department. Council Member Murphy supported the motion. No vote was taken on the motion. This informational staff report is the first step in the two-step process for placing items of the Agenda for consideration by the Council.
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with the City Council’s adopted Agenda Policy, this informational staff report does not request action, but seeks Council’s direction. By a majority vote of the City Council Members present, staff may be directed to place this item on a future Agenda for consideration by the Council.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Budget at its June 20, 2023 Regular meeting. The adopted budget includes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects that total approximately $8 million dollars. During the July 17, 2023 Regular meeting, Council Member Hibard requested further discussion of the funds approved for the Citywide Trash Receptacles Project and possible reallocation to the Police Department. The Citywide Trash Receptacle Project is part of the approved 2023-2024 Capital Improvement Project list. The projected cost for purchase and construction is $250,000.
Staff has provided a brief history of the project in question, which is set forth below.
DISCUSSION
In recent years, the City Council has approved an ambitious CIP program that has provided aesthetic, safety, and quality of life to Los Alamitos. The citywide trash receptacles project will beautify, clean, and fulfill the State's SB 1383 mandate.
Beginning in 2022, SB 1383 requires every jurisdiction in California to provide organic, regular, and recycled waste collection services. In 2021, Council awarded the City's waste hauling services to Universal Waste Systems (UWS). One reason that UWS was awarded the contract
was their ability to offer the City a two-cart system (organic and regular waste, recycled waste), while most haulers offered a three-cart system (organic, regular waste, recycled waste).
Another SB 1383 mandate is to have proper trash enclosures for waste bins 3-yards or larger.
The Civic Center, Little Cottonwood Park, and the Los Vaqueros warehouse location would need trash enclosures to fulfill this mandate.
Currently, the City's neighborhood parks, Civic Center, Los Alamitos Museum, and the Los Vaqueros warehouse location use residential trash receptacles. The Citywide Trash Receptacle Project would replace the residential bins with appropriate City-branded trash receptacles for organic/regular waste and recycled waste, place concrete pads if needed for stabilization, and build trash enclosures accordingly. The table below shows the number of trash receptacles and enclosures needed.
SITE TRASH RECEPTACLES ENCLOSURES
Civic Center (Roberts Park) 22 6
Warehouse 4
Museum 2
Little Cottonwood Park 14 2
Laurel Park 16
Labourdette Park 4
Orville R. Lewis Park 6
Soroptomist Park 2
Stansbury Park 4
Sterns Park 4
Coyote Creek Park 10
The City Council’s adopted Agenda Policy allows individual Council Members to place an item on the Agenda utilizing a two-step process. A Council Member may request an item be placed on a future Agenda during Council Announcements. Once a request is made, the item is then brought back to the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting with an informational staff report (step one). A majority vote of the City Council members present is required to direct staff to place the item on a future Agenda for consideration by the Council (step two).
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: None