Agenda packet — Seal Beach City Council, August 29, 2022

A G E N D A

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 29, 2022 ~ 7:00 PM

ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF WILL MEET VIA TELECONFERENCE

JOE KALMICK
MAYOR
First District

MIKE VARIPAPA
MAYOR PRO TEM
Third District

THOMAS MOORE
COUNCIL MEMBER
Second District

SCHELLY SUSTARSIC
COUNCIL MEMBER
Fourth District

SANDRA MASSA-LAVITT
COUNCIL MEMBER
Fifth District
This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. No action or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda, except as otherwise provided by law. Supporting documents, including agenda staff reports, and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available for review on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov.

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3 and on the City's website www.sealbeachca.gov). Check the SBTV3 schedule for rebroadcast of — meetings are available on- demand on the website (starting 2012) meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require disability - related modification or accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please call the City Clerk' s office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC OBSERVATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEASE NOTE: CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES, IN RESPONSE TO RECENT COVID-19 EXPOSURES

WITHIN THE CITY ORGANIZATION, THE CITY MANAGER HAS DIRECTED THAT

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD USING THE ZOOM PLATFORM AND

TELECONFERENCE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF.

PUBLIC COMMENT/PUBLIC HEARING: Members of the public may submit comments on any item on this Special City Council Meeting agenda via email to the City Clerk at [email protected] or via the comment icon through the online portal at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-MeetingVideos/CouncilCommission-Meetings, or by voicemail by dialing (562) 431-2527 x1601 before 5pm on August 29, 2022. All email comments the City Clerk receives before the start of the meeting will be posted on the City website and distributed to the Council Members. Email comments received after that time will be posted on the City’s website and forwarded to the City Council after the meeting.

Those members of the public wishing to call in for comment during the meeting can join the Zoom Meeting from any electronic device by clicking the following link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81966293972. You may also call in by dialing 1-669-900- 9128 and enter the webinar ID: 819-6629-3972. During the meeting, the Mayor will announce the opportunity for public comment. If watching on a device, use the ‘raise hand’ feature in Zoom to make a comment. If listening from a phone, dial *9 to raise your hand and make a comment. The meeting host will go through raised hands one by one. The name you signed in with on Zoom is the name that will be called upon when asked to speak. When it is your turn to speak, you will be prompted to unmute, and your Zoom username will be called upon to speak. Commenter will be allotted five (5) minutes to address the City Council. When addressed, clearly state your name for the record. The Clerk will announce when your time has expired. The City Council will not address any questions during the public comment period.

THIS NOTICE AND ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THIS NOTICE ARE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL’S DETERMINATION THAT REMOTE MEETINGS ARE STILL WARRANTED, AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e).

CALL TO ORDER

COUNCIL ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding the items on this Special City Council Meeting agenda. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law.

Those members of the public wishing to provide comment are asked to send comments via email to the City Clerk at [email protected] or via the comment icon on the City website at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/AgendasNotices-Meeting-Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings, or by voicemail by dialing (562) 431-2527 x1601 before 5:00 pm on August 29, 2022. Comments provided via email by 5:00 pm will be distributed to the City Council and posted on the City website for review by the public. Email comments received after that time will be posted on the City’s website and forwarded to the City Council after the meeting. Any documents for review should be sent to the City Clerk prior to the meeting for distribution.

Those members of the public wishing to call in for comment during the meeting can join the Zoom Meeting from any electronic device by clicking the following https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81966293972. You may also call in by dialing 1- 669-900-9128 enter the webinar ID: 819-6629-3972. During the meeting, the Mayor will announce the opportunity for public comment. If watching on a device, use the ‘raise hand’ feature in Zoom to make a comment. If listening from a phone, dial *9 to raise your hand and make a comment. The meeting host will go through raised hands one by one. The name you signed in with on Zoom is the name that will be called upon when asked to speak. When it is your turn to speak, you will be prompted to unmute, and your Zoom username will be called upon to speak. Commenter will be allotted five (5) minutes to address the City Council. When addressed, clearly state your name for the record. The Clerk will announce when your time has expired. The City Council will not address any questions during the public comment period.

PUBLIC HEARING
Continued from the August 8, 2022 regular City Council meeting.

A. Consideration by the City Council of Resolution Finding that the Housing Element is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination that the Adopted Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan - That the City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing; and, 2. Adopt Resolution 7324 Finding that the General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination that the Adopted Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn the Special City Council Meeting to Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary.

Agenda Item A

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 29, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration by the City Council of Resolution Finding that the Housing Element is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange
County Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination that the Adopted Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

That the City Council:

1. Conduct the public hearing; and,

2. Adopt Resolution 7324 Finding that the Adopted Seal Beach General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination that the Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

State law establishes the creation of advisory committees to provide for the orderly development of public use airports and surrounding uses. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 216744(a), the purpose of an airport land use commission is to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible land uses. In Orange County, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) acts as that advisory board for three airports, John Wayne Airport, Fullerton Airport, and the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB). Under the PUC, local agencies must submit certain land use planning actions within the vicinity of those airports to the ALUC for its advisory review. The ALUC examines submitted proposed planning actions for consistency with ALUC’s adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), for planning areas designated in the AELUP. The AELUP for the JFTB was most recently updated in 2017, and includes a variety of information designed to help development in those planning areas be compatible with the airport use, including heights, noise, and general safety. These topics are more thoroughly described later in this staff report.

Pursuant to PUC Section 21676(b), the City of Seal Beach’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was submitted to the ALUC on February 1, 2022, following the Planning Commission public hearing on January 18, 2022 where some minor modifications were made. The Housing Element includes a number of housing opportunity sites identified for potential new residential development to assist the City in meeting its regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) of 1,243 dwelling units. The ALUC reviewed the adopted Housing Element on February 17, 2022, and voted unanimously (5-0) to find the City's Housing Element inconsistent with the AELUP based on noise, safety, and general concerns of land use incompatibility. Though nine potential housing opportunity sites are within planning areas identified in the AELUP, ALUC discussion at the meeting focused primarily on the opportunity site located on the Old Ranch Country Club property, along the western edge of the golf course and near the JFTB. Much of the area surrounding the housing opportunity sites is already developed with residential development, and the housing opportunity sites would constitute infill development in and around those existing uses. The previously-developed residential areas include thousands of housing units located at College Park East, Leisure World, Rossmoor, and neighborhoods north of the Old Ranch Town Center in both Seal Beach and Los Alamitos.

The ALUC determination was presented to the City Council on April 11, 2022, at which time the Council adopted Resolution 7273, which provides that the Council will consider whether to overrule the ALUC’s findings of inconsistency. PUC Section 21676(b) requires that prior to making a decision on whether to overrule an ALUC inconsistency determination, the City must provide at least 45 days’ notice to the ALUC and the State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (DOT), and conduct a public hearing. Following the April 11, 2022 City Council meeting, staff notified the ALUC and the DOT of the City Council’s action, and provided each of them with a copy of Resolution 7273. The ALUC and DOT then had 30 days of receiving the Resolution to submit comments for the City Council’s consideration. Letters of response were received from both entities (Attachments B and C). Those comments are advisory to the City Council, and must be included in the public record of the City Council’s final action. The topics raised will be addressed later in this staff report.

The City Council has three possible courses of action, as follows.

1. The City Council may choose to take no action. Staff does not recommend this option, as it is likely to result in the ALUC imposing a requirement to review all land use actions, regulations, and permits under PUC Section 21676.5, which would substantially delay entitlement and building permit processes including those related to meeting the City’s share of regional housing needs assessment (RHNA).

2. The City Council may choose to identify alternative sites for new housing units, amend the Housing Element, and resubmit the revised document to ALUC for consistency review. Again, staff does not recommend this option.

The Housing Element is a policy document that identifies opportunities for housing in compliance with State law. It does not approve any development projects. Moreover, if the City were to eliminate all housing opportunity sites that are discussed in the response letters, the City would have to find new locations for 870 of the 1,243 required RHNA units.

3. The City Council may overrule the ALUC, which is staff’s recommendation this evening. The Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Costa Mesa recently overruled the ALUC related to John Wayne Airport, after the ALUC also issued findings of inconsistency with their respective housing elements. An action overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination would allow the City to move closer to Housing Element certification from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Response Letters to Adoption of Resolution 7273
Response letters from ALUC and the DOT were received after the City notified them of the City Council’s adoption of Resolution 7273. The letters are generally focused on land use compatibility, noise, and safety. As noted above, a total of nine housing opportunity sites are located within the designated airport notification area, within and around other existing residential and commercial development.

General Land Use Compatibility
The ALUC determination notes “the Commission is charged by PUC Section 21674 (a) ‘to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of…existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses,’ and PUC Section 21674(b) ‘to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.’” The DOT letter contains similar reference to PUC 21674.7(b) regarding general compatibility.

In drafting the Housing Element, the City worked very diligently to identify the housing opportunity sites contained in the Housing Element, including consultation with the adopted AELUP, which was drafted specifically by the ALUC for the purpose of creating compatibility between the JFTB and surrounding uses. As set forth in the City’s General Plan, all development on the proposed housing opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards set forth in the AELUP. The adopted Housing Element acknowledges the requirement that all elements of the General Plan must be internally consistent, and residential development capacities established in the Land Use Element and constraints to development identified in the Safety/Noise Element are reflected in the Housing Element. (Housing Element, Introduction, Section D, p. I-2.) The Housing Element also identifies the role of the ALUC in assisting the City in assuring land use compatibility near the JFTB, for those portions within the areas subject to ALUC review, including restrictions on safety and noise, and consistency with the AELUP. (Housing Element, Constraints, Section IV(A)(4), p. IV-33.) Noise
The AELUP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system for measuring noise impacts, which is a weighted average of noise over time. The AELUP defines the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise Impact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as “High Impact.” (AELUP Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4.) Residential uses are identified as “conditionally consistent” for the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” for the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (AELUP Section 3, Table 1 “Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise”). The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or Noise Impact Zone 2. Instead, the AELUP provides that residential uses should be developed with insulation systems that bring the sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside, consistent with the City’s General Plan Noise Element and State Building Code. The City’s Noise Element acknowledges the AELUP; it further states that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable for multi-family residential uses. Attachment D is a map excerpt from the AELUP, identifying noise contours, and Attachment E is an excerpt from the Noise Element, showing noise contours associated with roadways as well as the AELUP contour line for 65dB.

Both maps illustrate that a number of residential uses that are already developed within higher CNEL areas, particularly adjacent to the I-405 including portions of College Park East, College Park West, Leisure World, and portions of Old Town along the Pacific Coast Highway.

The DOT response acknowledges housing development is conditionally consistent with the AELUP with interior sound attenuation, but provides further general commentary about noise and suggests the CNEL noise contour lines in the adopted AELUP may be outdated. The general commentary from the DOT is not part of the adopted 2017 AELUP nor was it included as justification for the ALUC’s inconsistency determination. In developing the Housing Element, the City relied upon the documented information of the AELUP, and is not required to preemptively guess at how noise contours may or may not have changed. Noise is indeed generated by aircraft, including those arriving or departing from Long Beach and John Wayne Airports, which both have flight paths over areas of Seal Beach in arguably much larger numbers than those of the JFTB. Further, noise is generated from roadways, particularly the I-405, which runs near some housing opportunity sites creating up CNEL contours of up to 70. Noise is already a part of urban living in Seal Beach, including around those nine housing opportunity sites.

The high housing market demand, even in areas near noise-producing uses such as highways and airports, reflects consumer willingness to accept it.

Safety
AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at the JFTB. Accident potential zones (APZ) and clear zones (CZ) were set in 1994 and based on Department of Defense criteria. According to the AELUP, prior to 1995, the ALUC utilized a 10-year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located within the boundaries of JFTB, and no additional accident potential zones are identified in the adopted AELUP beyond the clear zones. CZs are also marked on Attachment D, and no development is proposed by the Housing Element within them.

The response letter from ALUC acknowledges that none of the housing opportunity sites are located within the APZs or CZs, but states that the ALUC finding of inconsistency is based upon a broader definition of safety. Its response letter does not clearly identify the parameters of this broader definition, other than suggesting reliance upon the following nonspecific statement in Section 2.2 of the AELUP:
“the Commission may consider the utilization of criteria for protecting aircraft traffic patterns at this airport which may differ from those contained in FAR Part 77, should evidence of health, welfare, or safety surface sufficient to justify such an action.” The letter also refers to Section 3.2.1 of the AELUP, which provides only general land use policies, without listing any identifiable factors leading to the AELUP’s position. The substantial efforts that went into identifying the opportunity sites had only the established AELUP standards available for reference, and it is unclear how to respond to or satisfy the vague broader definition suggested by ALUC.

The DOT letter states it recommended updates to the AELUP related to APZs in 2016, but concedes that the ALUC did not incorporate those recommendations into the adopted AELUP. Specifically, the DOT states that the APZs were established in 1994 according to the Department of Defense’s (DoD) standards. It was at this time that no APZs were identified outside the JFTB boundaries. The DOT recommended in its 2016 letter to the ALUC that the APZs be updated pursuant to guidance provided by the DoD and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). As the ALUC did not include the DOT’s recommendations in its 2017 updated AELUP, the DOT’s response to Resolution 7273 instead provided feedback based on its own assessment of the area utilizing DoD Instruction 4165.57. However, Instruction 4165.57 states that the description of APZ boundaries are guidelines only, as local situations may differ significantly.

According to the 2016 DOT letter to ALUC as well as information shown in presentation slides provided by JFTB staff (Attachment F), traffic patterns at the JFTB are not straight in and out. As these have not been studied and incorporated into the AELUP, and the City lacks information or documentation to determine how the DOT identified the APZs it indicates overlap four of the housing opportunity sites, no evidence has been provided that the Housing Element is inconsistent with the AELUP or even with the DoD Instruction 4165.57.

The four sites DOT describes as being out of compliance with DoD development compatibility recommendations are the already-developed Old Ranch Town Center, the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Country Club, and Leisure World.

DOT contends that the Old Ranch Town Center and portions of Leisure World are incompatible with housing uses, while the balance of Leisure World as well as the Shops at Rossmoor and the Old Ranch Country Club should be limited to two (2) residential dwellings per acre. According to Instruction 4165.57, most recently updated in 2021, compatibility recommendations are from a 1974 Air Force study.

Given that the ALUC approved the 2017 AELUP without incorporation of those DOT recommendations, the City may legitimately presume that the ALUC concluded those additional recommendations from the DOT were unnecessary.

Of further significance, both the Handbook and the AELUP contain discussions related to infill development, a description that would apply to all housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element. Pages 3-52 and 4-41 of the Handbook instruct the ALUC to consider whether it is realistic to prevent technically incompatible development of a small area surrounded by similar existing development. Further, the Handbook recommends that ALUC develop policies specific to infill development. The AELUP states that infill projects must comply with all applicable specific policies, which the opportunity sites do because they do not violate height restrictions, are consistent with noise and safety policies, and are not within identified APZs or CZs.

As noted, the City’s Housing Element expressly recognizes the need for development to comply with all elements of the General Plan, including the Noise and Safety Element. The Safety Element also acknowledges JFTB impact zones, requirements relating to height and notice, and provides that the City will incorporate findings of the ALUC and FAA will be taken into consideration in its decision-making on individual projects
Liability
During Council discussion on April 11, 2022 when the overrule process was initiated, questions regarding liability were raised because PUC Section 21678 states that if the City overrides ALUC's action or recommendation, the operator of the airport shall be immune to liability from damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the City's decision to overrule the ALUC determination. The discussion of liability is a complex one, particularly in this case, where the airport is operated by the military, specifically the U.S. Army.

Generally speaking, the U.S. Government is already exempt from liability for accidents resulting from miliary activities. The PUC does not provide immunity to any other entities, including other aircraft operators. Further, the Government Code grants immunity to jurisdictions from liability related to issuing a permit. Ultimately, developers assume liability for their projects.

Tonight’s Action
Pursuant to the PUC, not less than 45-days after the Resolution 7273 was sent to the ALUC and DOT, the City Council may conduct a public hearing, after which the City Council may decide whether to adopt a resolution to overrule the ALUC and make specific findings that the Housing Element is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as set forth in PUC Section 21670. The resolution to overrule the ALUC must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council.

Pursuant to the PUC, upon adoption of an overrule action, the Housing Element shall not be subject to further ALUC review, unless the ALUC and the City agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the ALUC.

As noted previously, staff recommends the City Council overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency. The City Council must weigh all obligations that have been levied upon it by the State, which has for the last five years repeatedly placed housing development at the forefront of its policies. Unfortunately, the burden of responsibility has been placed on cities without regard to physical circumstances such as coastal zones, protected land, military installations, or airports, all of which are challenges the City faces as it seeks to not only identify sites for 1,243 housing units, but to defend the suitability of those sites. Failure to do so results in loss of grant funding (potentially millions of dollars), exposure to increased legal challenges, referral by HCD to the State Attorney General for potential legal actions, and in extreme circumstances, loss of authority to make land use decisions and issue permits.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

There is no environmental impact related to this item. Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 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, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolution and approved as to form.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Adoption of the Housing Element was identified as a Council priority. ALUC review of the Housing Element is a part of the overall update process.

MEASURE BB:

This item is not applicable to Measure BB, the Seal Beach Neighborhood and Essential Services Protection Measure.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council:

1. Conduct the public hearing; and,

2. Adopt Resolution 7324 Finding that the General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element is Consistent with the Purposes of the State Aeronautics Act and Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Determination that the Adopted Housing Element is Inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:

Alexa Smittle Jill R. Ingram
Alexa Smittle, Community
Development Director
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution 7324
B. ALUC Response Letter
C. DOT Response Letter
D. ALEUP Noise Contours and Clear Zones with Nearby Opportunity Sites E. General Plan Figure N-5 Noise Contours
F. JFTB Flight Pattern Presentation, May 2022
RESOLUTION 7324

A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL FINDING
THE GENERAL PLAN 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT (6TH CYCLE)

UPDATE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE

AERONAUTICS ACT AND OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE 2017 JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS

AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 200 of the City of Seal Beach (“City”) Charter vests the City Council with authority to make and enforce all laws, rules and regulations with respect to municipal affairs, subject only to the restrictions and limitations contained in this Charter and in the Constitution of the State of California. It shall also have the power to exercise any and all rights, powers and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted, or prescribed by any law of the State, by this Charter, or the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power, duty, or procedure shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation or restriction upon, this general grant of power; and, WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65580 et seq. (Housing Element Law) requires that every city prepare and periodically update the housing element of the general plan; every city is mandated to include statutory requirements in the housing element, and every city is required to submit a draft of its housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment as to whether the City’s draft 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project) substantially complies with Housing Element Law; and,
WHEREAS, the City worked with its consultants, the community, Planning Commission and City Council to prepare the Project as required by the Housing Element Law); and,
WHEREAS, the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) allocation imposed on the City by the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), of 1,243 units, is a substantial increase in the number of affordable housing opportunities required in comparison to the 5th Cycle RHNA allocation of only two units, and as a result required the City to identify all available sites Citywide as potential housing opportunities, including some in proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB), which is subject to the 2017 Joint Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”) of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”); and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City referred the Project to the ALUC for advisory review for its consistency with the AELUP; and,
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2022, the ALUC by unanimous (5-0) vote, determined that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP due to noise, safety, and general land use compatibility of potential housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element; and, WHEREAS, as the final review authority pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, if it makes specific findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 regarding the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses; and,
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on a proposal to overrule the ALUC inconsistency finding, the City must provide the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (the “State Division of Aeronautics”) with notice of the City’s intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination along with specific findings at least 45 days prior to the City’s action to overrule the ALUC; and, WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics shall respond to the notification of the findings of proposed override within 30 days of receiving the proposed resolution and findings; and, WHEREAS, in the event the ALUC or State Division of Aeronautics’ comments are not available within this timeframe, the City may act without them; and, WHEREAS, any comments by the ALUC and State Division of Aeronautics are advisory to the City under state law; and the City Council shall include any comments from the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics in the final record of any final decision by the City Council to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a twothirds vote of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on April 11, 2022, in the City Council Chambers located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California, at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and the City Council adopted Resolution 7273 by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay, to notify the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics of the City’s intent to overrule ALUC’s inconsistency finding; and,
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2022, the City sent a copy of Resolution 7273 via email and United States Postal Service to the ALUC and the State Division of Aeronautics; and, WHEREAS, the City received comments in response to Resolution 7273 from the State Division of Aeronautics and the ALUC; and those comments are hereby incorporated by reference and the facts in support of the findings provided in Section 1 of this resolution adequately address both comment letters; and,
WHEREAS, the documents and other materials constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Community Development Department of the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740; and,
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2022, a public hearing was held by the City Council electronically via Zoom. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with CPUC Section 21676(b) and the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) Update (“Project”) is consistent with the purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and the AELUP of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

Facts in Support

1. The Project is consistent with the noise standards of the AELUP.

The AELUP guides the orderly development of Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and the surrounding area through implementation of the standards in AELUP Section 2 (Planning Guidelines) and Section 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these standards is intended to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace. AELUP Section

2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standards. The Project includes the identification of 2 opportunity sites within the 60 dB CNEL contour for JFTB.

No sites are within the 65 dB CNEL.

Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4, respectively, of the AELUP define the noise exposure in the 60- 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise Impact” and in the 65-70 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as “High Impact”. Section 3, Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) of the AELUP identifies residential as “conditionally consistent” with the 60-65 dB CNEL noise contour. Residential uses are not outright prohibited in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or 2. AELUP Section 3.2.4 requires residential uses to be developed with advanced insulation systems to bring the sound after attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside. The City’s General Plan Noise Element currently requires also requires interior sound attenuation of 45dB.

2. The proposed Project is consistent with the safety standards of the AELUP.

AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) sets forth zones depicting which land uses are acceptable in the JFTB environs, and states that only an Accident Potential Zone (APZ) “A” located within the boundaries of JFTB was justified. Further, there are not APZs identified beyond the Clear Zones for JFTB, therefore APZ “A” is designated as a Clear Zone. No opportunity sites are located within the Clear Zone.

3. The proposed Project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the AELUP and will not result in incompatible land uses adjacent to JFTB.

The standards and policies set forth in Sections 2 (Planning Guidelines) and 3 (Land Use Policies) of the AELUP were adopted to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. As set forth above, any development on the proposed housing opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in Sections 2 and 3.

Much of the area surrounding the housing opportunity sites within the AELUP planning area is already developed with residential development, and the housing opportunity sites would constitute infill development in and around those existing uses. The previouslydeveloped residential areas include thousands of housing units located in the neighborhoods of College Park East, Leisure World, Rossmoor, and neighborhoods north of the Old Ranch Town Center in both Seal Beach and Los Alamitos. Consistent with the AELUP, any infill projects must comply with all applicable specific policies, and the housing opportunity sites do not violate the AELUP height restrictions, are consistent with the noise and safety policies, and are not within any identified APZs or CZs. Further, the Project does not constitute approval or commitment to development, but identifies potential future sites for housing, and compliance with the AELUP standards will be evaluated and demonstrated if and when development projects are proposed in the future following the subsequent comprehensive update of the General Plan.

SECTION 3. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council finds that the Project is consistent with the noise standards, safety standards, and purposes and intent of the AELUP; and hereby overrules the ALUC’s determination that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 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 proposal to overrule the ALUC’s determination and does not commit the City to approve the Project. The Project will be independently reviewed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members

Joe Kalmick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7324 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of August, 2022.

Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274
(916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
May 12, 2022
Ms. Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director Electronically Sent City of Seal Beach [email protected]
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Ms. Smittle,
One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division) is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of their communities in which aeronautical activities take place. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Division in the review of the proposed overrule of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (OCALUC) for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB).

On April 13, 2022, the Division received a notification email and Resolution 7273. This was regarding a proposed overrule of OCALUC’s determination of inconsistency regarding the city of Seal Beach’s (City) General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (Project). The Project proposes nine housing opportunity sites within the airport notification area of JFTB. February 17, 2022, the OCALUC found that the proposed Project was inconsistent with the current JFTB Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) amended August 17, 2017. The OCALUC found the proposed Project inconsistent citing noise, safety, and overflight concerns.

It should be noted that according to the 2015 Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Appendix K of the AELUP, JFTB houses the largest army airfield that is operated by the Army National Guard. The document states further that the JFTB “airfield is one of the busiest Department of Defense (DoD) aviation operations in the continental United States and is located in one of the most congested and heavily flown airspace systems in the U.S.” The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.

Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC statutes set forth in PUC section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a) (1) and (2).

Based on the information provided by both the City and the OCALUC, the Division does not agree with the City’s findings.

Ms. Smittle, Community Development Director
May 12, 2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

1. Draft Finding #1, referring to Section 2.a., 2.b., 2.c. 2.e., of Resolution 7273 from the City The Division disagrees with Finding #1. Two of the nine housing opportunity sites, included in the Project, are within the 60-65dB CNEL noise contour. This includes the Old Ranch Town Center area with the potential to accommodate up to 200 housing units as well as the Old Ranch Country Club area with the potential to accommodate up to 120 housing units. The AELUP states that residential uses within this contour are conditionally consistent with the requirement of sound attenuation to ensure interior CNEL do not exceed 45dB.

Although, residential uses are conditionally compatible with the sound attenuation requirement, the Division is concerned as JFTB aviation operations make it one of the busiest DoD airfields in the continental United States (U.S.) within one of the most congested and heavily flown airspace systems in the U.S. According to the 2015 Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Appendix K of the AELUP, while noise contours address annual noise levels, instances of individual overflights operating beyond the airfield “generate noise levels that some individuals might find disruptive and/or annoying.” These instances of singular overflight are often the source of noise complaints for air installations.

Furthermore, attached is a letter dated December 16, 2016, from the Division to the OCALUC regarding the Division’s serious concerns for future development areas surrounding JFTB. The letter showcases the Divisions concerns related to the age of the adopted noise contours, as the noise contours in the AELUP for JFTB are the same as those provided in the 1994 Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone Study (AICUZ). Since there have been no new noise analysis since the 1994 AICUZ, for aircraft arriving and departing JFTB, there is serious concern that new noise issues would be created.

In addition, the Division supports the OCALUC’s determination of inconsistency as PUC Section 21674(a) states that ALUCs are “to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible land uses” and PUC Section 21670(a)(1) “to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation while at the same time protecting public health, safety, and welfare.”

2. Draft Finding #2, referring to Section 2.d and 2.e of Resolution 7273 from the City The Division disagrees with Finding #2. The Clear Zones identified in the AELUP for JFTB are defined by the 1994 AICUZ through the DoD’s AICUZ program. AICUZ standards establish three accident potential zones (APZs), the innermost is the clear zone, further followed by APZ I and APZ II. The 1994 AICUZ for JFTB states that the “Accident Potential Zones do not extend beyond installation boundaries. Use of the airfield by Class B type aircraft, while routine, is not sufficient to justify off-base Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones”, meaning that the 1994 AICUZ for JFTB does not identify APZ I or APZ II as applicable safety compatibility zones. In the attached letter from the Division to OCALUC, the Division references the 2015 Installation Compatible Use Zone Study, Appendix K of the AELUP, Ms. Smittle, Community Development Director
May 12, 2022

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” estimating 46,016 annual aircraft operations at JFTB. Based on this estimate of operations, the Division recommended updating the JFTB safety zones to include APZ I and APZ II, to be in line with the guidance provided by the DoD and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook).

In addition, guidance in the Handbook states “AICUZ compatibility criteria tend to be minimal in terms of the degree of protection from incompatible land uses which they afford. ALUCs and local jurisdictions can and should consider setting higher standards in their own respective compatibility planning.” In reference to this guidance as well as the age of the AICUZ document (28 years old), the Division reviewed the housing opportunity sites in relation to the three standard APZs for Class B military runways as defined in DoD Instruction 4165.57 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones and the Handbook. It should also be noted that since 1994, when the JFTB AICUZ was prepared, the Handbook has been revised twice to incorporate updated accident data and characteristics into the guidance for defining safety zones.

The housing opportunity sites are located in the following APZs:
• Site 1 – Shops at Rossmoor (up to 40 dwelling units/acre): APZ II • Site 2 – Old Ranch Town Center (up to 40 du/acre): Clear Zone, APZ I • Site 3 – Old Ranch Country Club (up to 24du/acre): APZ II • Site 4 – Leisure World (up to 30du/acre): APZ I, APZ II Regarding these zones, the DoD Instruction 4165.57 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones states:
• Clear Zone: Residential land uses are not compatible
• APZ I: Residential land uses are not compatible
• APZ II: Residential land uses are compatible with a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre
Regarding these zones, the Handbook states:
• Clear zone (Safety Zone 1): Residential land uses are prohibited • APZ I (Safety Zone 2): Avoid all residential uses except infill in developed areas o Maximum residential densities for suburban areas: 1 dwelling unit (du)/10-20 acres o Maximum residential densities for urban areas: 0 du/acre • APZ II (Safety Zone 4): Limit residential uses to low density o Maximum residential densities for suburban areas: 1du/2-5 acre o Maximum residential densities for urban areas: Allow infill at up average density/intensity of comparable surrounding users
It should be noted that the proposed housing opportunity site for Old Ranch Town Center is located in the Clear Zone (Safety Zone 1), as defined by the Handbook. 40du/acre are being proposed in the Clear Zone, while according to the Handbook, residential land uses are prohibited in this zone due to a very high accident risk level.

According to the Handbook, the proposed densities by the City would create new significant safety and noise issues and thus is not in accordance with the guidance of the Handbook or Ms. Smittle, Community Development Director
May 12, 2022

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b). The Division strongly recommends not approving this overrule due to significant safety risks and potential noise incompatibility. Please note the PUC reference below, which mandates that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria as established in the Handbook:

California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b),
It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Division.

As previously stated, attached is a letter dated December 16, 2016, from the Division to the OCALUC regarding the Division’s serious concerns in reference to future development areas surrounding JFTB.

Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the OCALUC.

If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gabrielle Sefranek
Associate Transportation Planner
Division of Aeronautics
Attachment
Tony Soredello-Review JFTB Los Alamitos ALUCP Ltr 121616 c: Lea Choum, Executive Officer, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics

Los Alamitos Army Airfield
Noise Abatement, Airspace, and
Traffic Patterns
The POCs for this brief include:

Mr. Jeff Sibley, Airfield Manager [email protected] Mr. Lupe R. Mora, Air Traffic Control Chief [email protected] Mr. Rob Wilson, Safety Manager [email protected] • The purpose of this brief is to show the current
approach and departure routes, as well as the LAAAF
traffic patterns and its noise abatement procedures.
• North and South Traffic Pattern
– Runway 22L/04R and 22R/04L
– 700’ MSL
– Airspeed usually < 100 knots
Los Alamitos Army Airfield
Airspace and Traffic Patterns
• Total: 140,406
• Monthly Average: 11,701
• Daily Average: 401
• Hourly Average: 37
Multiple Rotary and
Fixed-wing - all fixed wing
use 22L and 22R, 180 degree
Turn out over the golf course
for IFR flights and VOR vectors
2021 Total Traffic Count
Helicopter Traffic Pattern
Traffic Pattern
Current Noise Sensitive Areas
Outside Traffic Pattern
Rotor (R/W) Outside pattern 1000’ MSL and
Fixed Wing (F/W) Outside pattern 1500’ MSL
with Tower Approval.

Traffic Pattern
Current Noise Sensitive Areas
F/W traffic
I405/HWY 22
Industrial Area

22L/04R B1 North Pattern
Traffic Pattern
RWY 22L/04R
Current Noise Sensitive Areas
Arrival / Departure
Procedures
• South Arrival
– 1000’ MSL inbound
– Over fly the golf course, Seal beach Naval Weapons
Station, remain east of Seal Beach Blvd, enter the traffic pattern overflying the Old Ranch Golf Course at 700’ MSL • South Departure
– 700’ MSL Outbound
– Fly Over the Old Ranch Golf Course, then over the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and then to Anaheim Bay
breakwater reefs turning on course.
– NOTE: A/C on LGB ILS approach will be at 1600’ MSL over Guney.

Old Ranch Golf Course Proposed
Construction Areas
South (Country Club Departure) – Standard
Departure (99% of all departures)
- 22L is the most used runway
for arrivals and departures.
- 180 turn out is standard for
majority of IFR departures.
- 180 turn out used for radar
vectors for the VOR.
- 22L to 180 is last departure
and arrival route that is not
above built-up areas.
- Noise decibel ‘Zone II’, not
recommended for residential
zoning.

South Arrival / Departure
Procedures (R/W)
Current Noise Sensitive Areas
Arrival / Departure
Procedures
• Katella Arrival
– 1500’ MSL inbound
– Track over Katella Blvd
• Katella Departure
– 1500’ MSL outbound
– Track over Katella Blvd
Katella Arrival/ Departure
Air traffic utilizes the industrial corridor
LAAAF
1500’ AGL
Current Noise Sensitive Areas
• North Arrival
– 1500’ MSL inbound
– LAAAF’s Class D airspace begins/ends at 605/91 FWY
Interchange. Remain east side of I-605 FWY Southbound.

Turn Downwind (East) over Cerritos Ave. Turn Base, over Valley View ST, to Final over Industrial Complex, east of Valley View ST, and line up for approach or enter Traffic Pattern. • North Departure
– 1500’ MSL outbound
– Depart KSLI on a 04 heading until crossing Costco parking lot.

Turn Downwind in-between Katella Ave and Cerritos Ave.

Turn North bound before crossing the I-605 FWY remaining on the east side of the freeway.

Arrival / Departure
Procedures
North Arrival/ Departure
All air traffic avoids noise sensitive areas (red)

LGB CLASS D
Inbound 1500’ MSL
Outbound 1500’ MSL
Current Noise Sensitive AreasValley View ST

1 Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Request to UPHOLD the ALUC decision
From: Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:18 PM
To: Jill Ingram <[email protected]>; Alexa Smittle <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Request to UPHOLD the ALUC decision
Fyi
Thanks,
Mike
Begin forwarded message:

From: Lorraine Navarro <[email protected]>
Date: August 7, 2022 at 7:37:51 PM PDT
To: Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Request to UPHOLD the ALUC decision
------ Forwarded Message --------
From: Lorraine Navarro <[email protected]>
Date: 8/7/2022 7:33:29 PM
Subject: Request to UPHOLD the ALUC decision
To: [email protected], [email protected], Thomas Moore <[email protected]>, [email protected], Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
August 7, 2022
Honorable Members of Seal Beach City Council,
I am writing to you all with my very deep concerns about the proposed housing development at Old Ranch Country Club. My intent is to request your informed consideration to NOT override the ALUC decision in tomorrow’s meeting of August 8, 2022.

I have lived in College Park East for 38 years, and I have been an active, balanced and involved citizen of our city and have served as a member of the Seal Beach EQCB. I have served as an elected Board Member for the Los Alamitos Unified School District, as well as countless committees for our school district, currently on the COC (Citizens Oversight Committee) for Oversight of Bond Measure G. In short, I have much experience in development and committee issues involving our city and school district.

This proposed development at Old Ranch Country Club stands in violation of the ALUC recommendation, and I believe overriding the decision puts our city at risk, (no matter what attorney’s say) of proposed litigation should there ever be a lawsuit due to an accident on the proposed developments from aircraft at the JFTB, and would degrade the quality of life for residents of CPE.

The City of Seal Beach fought for a Development Agreement which prohibits future development on the sites until 2029. I beg you to honor that agreement made with the citizens of Seal Beach and allow this to stand. 2 Dr. Chou, the owner, bought the property in 2005-2006 and when he bought it, he knew that it had a Development Agreement that prohibited anything other than recreation/golf until 2029. Every year or so he has come either to the city or to former Councilman Miller with a proposal and he has always been turned down because of the Development Agreement, and rightly so. The City has identified over 1500 sites, so the housing on this one is really not needed: It makes it appear that the only reason for this development is to overturn this agreement. By putting housing along SB Blvd and Lampson Avenue via HCD’s request for housing units for the Housing Element. It appears what Dr. Chou really wants is the hotel. The housing part is only a means to the end. I was interviewed by the City’s consultant for input on various housing sites in the City, and when I asked about this site, she side-stepped my question and said it was “not on the list”.

In view of the Development Agreement and the certain impact of ORCC’s proposed development on our community, along with the following concerns, I want to share with you the serious concerns I have about this proposed development, and its negative impacts on the quality of life for the residents of CPE.

TRAFFIC
Traffic is a significant issue for the residents of CPE. Lampson Avenue is our only ingress and egress from the neighborhood, and what we don’t need is the intersection of Lampson & Seal Beach Blvd being further gridlocked with traffic from another hotel. The only possible mitigation could be widening Lampson Avenue from four lanes to six lanes from Basswood Avenue to Seal Beach Blvd. The required land would have to come from the golf course property. If the owner wants a traffic-generating project, he needs to pay for the widening of the street to help the flow traffic. My house backs onto Lampson across from the 13th hole, and my second story office overlooks the street. The increase in traffic of cars and prohibited trucks over 3T in the last 5 years is significant. Additionally, we still do now know the impacts of the freeway widening which will end at the county line and will lose two lanes. What impact will that have on both Seal Beach Blvd and Valley View Street funneling traffic down Lampson Avenue? While the development decisions for the West Ed property are the purview of Los Alamitos, it is the residents of College Park East that will bear the burden of the additional traffic of potential 500 homes.

Why is the city even considering this proposal, in light of enough proposed housing, an existing Development Agreement in place until 2029, and the ALUC recommendation against it? In summary, I urge you to consider the significant negative impacts to the residents of CPE and all citizens driving their children to schools using Seal Beach Boulevard.

Please do not override the ALUC’s decision.

Sincerely,
Lorraine Navarro
4249 Ironwood Avenue
Seal Beach
562-225-8092
____________________________
Lorraine Navarro - Gmail
1 Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Override of ALUC
Attachments: article re crash 1966pdf.pdf
From: Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Jill Ingram <[email protected]>; Alexa Smittle <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Override of ALUC
FYI
Thanks,
Mike
Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: August 7, 2022 at 4:39:50 PM PDT
To: Joe Kalmick <[email protected]>, Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>, Thomas Moore <[email protected]>, Sandra Massa-Lavitt <[email protected]>, Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Subject: Override of ALUC
Reply-To: [email protected]
To the Members of the Seal Beach City Council:

It has been said that the Airport Land Use Commission’s purpose is to protect the airports from people and the people from the airports. All land use decisions for land In the vicinity of airports must come before the ALUC to be sure the people are protected and that the airport’s ability to operate safely is also protected.

The two housing projects on the Old Ranch golf course have been deemed to be inconsistent for noise and safety reasons. These housing projects are less than a mile (approximately 3,040 feet) from the end of the JFTB’s main runway.

Liability: The PUC clearly states “with respect to a publicly owned airport that a public agency does not operate, if the public agency (pursuant to Section 21676, 2176.5 or 21677) overrules a commission’s action or recommendation the operator of the airport shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to overrule the commission’s action or recommendation.”
2 Where does that leave Seal Beach? I spoke with Mr. Jeff Stock, the attorney for the ALUC, and we discussed liability. He said that in the event of an air-related accident, everyone will be sued, but that as the lawsuit progresses, different defendants will drop out one by one, and that will leave the city as they voted to override the ALUC. Even the landowner and the builder will sue the city as the city gave it’s ok to build. Essentially, the buck stops with the city as the city gives the ultimate permission.

Joint Powers Insurance Agency: has the city manager or staff or anyone contacted the JPIA to see if the city will still be covered if the Council overrides the ALUC ? If they won’t, then that is another reason for not overriding the ALUC. Seal Beach is a small city and simply cannot afford the exposure to such a huge liability if the insurance carrier will not cover us for that. Larger cities could absorb such a lawsuit. An event as that would totally bankrupt the city. Is the risk worth it? NO.

Safety: The ALUC states that “allowing residential uses in this approach corridor would concentrate people in an area susceptible to aircraft accidents and is not recommended.”
Attached is a copy of an article from the News Enterprise of January 26, 1967, on a crash that occurred December 15, 1966. Apparently there was a fog bank at the end of the runway which could not be detected. The pilot was on instruments for take off, went to visual at the end of the runway and hit the fog bank . In that split second, he became disoriented, and instead of pulling the plane up, he went straight ahead through the trees and down Yellowtail Drive hitting six homes. Had these proposed housing units been there, he would have gone through them.

There was another air incident on the base, but fortunately it stayed on the base. In the early 1970’s, while the Navy was still there, the pilots would often do “touch-and-go” landings/takeoffs on Saturdays for the “weekend warriors.” One Saturday, a T4 or A4 blew a tire on touchdown and skidded south towards Lampson Ave, almost to the fence. The emergency crews on the base were there immediately and foamed down the plane and towed it back to the other side of the base. My husband and I had been watching the planes from an upstairs window and saw the whole thing. My husband immediately ran around to Lampson to get a better visual of what happened: how close to Lampson did it come? My main concern with that incident: had it been 3 a larger plane, it would have skidded across Lampson and into the houses.

Noise: The ALUC believes that “the proposed new locations for residential units would be highly affected by airport noise due to the close proximity to the airport.” When fighter jets take off, they are incredibly noisy and can be up to 140 dB -- far in excess of the 60-65 dB recommended for housing. Loaded C-5’s are not necessarily noisy, but will use the entire runway to lift off. It is rather nerve wracking to be at Lampson & Seal Beach Blvd when one of those takes off as it takes a lot longer to get air borne than the fighter jets.

Bottom line: anywhere on Old Ranch Golf Club is a poor location for housing because of the proximity of the base and its runways because of safety and noise. Please remove Site 3 from the Housing Element and do not override the Airport Land Use Commission’s ruling of inconsistency.

Thank you.

Patty Campbell
Planning Commissioner, District 4
Alternate Commissioner, ALUC

1 Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Proposed Development at Old Ranch
From: Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:54 PM
To: Jill Ingram <[email protected]>; Alexa Smittle <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Development at Old Ranch
FYI
Thanks,
Mike
Begin forwarded message:

From: Charles Rice <[email protected]>
Date: August 7, 2022 at 8:36:27 PM PDT
To: Joe Kalmick <[email protected]>, Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>, Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>, Thomas Moore <[email protected]>, Sandra Massa-Lavitt <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Development at Old Ranch

Members of the Seal Beach City Council,
We have been residents of Seal Beach (College Park East) for the past 48 years and are concerned about the proposed development on the Old Ranch Country Club property.  The OC Airport Land Use Commission decided that this development is inconsistent with the land use planning document for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. If the City Council decides to override the ALUC’s decision, then the city of Seal Beach and all of its residents will now be liable if there is an air related incident affecting this location. Why is the city willing to place itself and all of its residents in such jeopardy?
 This proposed project will affect those of us who live near Lampson, which is the only street providing access to our community. A development of this magnitude will negatively impact traffic and the quality of life in the area.  The owners of Old Ranch and the city of Seal Beach entered into a Development Agreement on the golf course property that does not expire until 2029. This agreement requires only recreation uses for the golf course. By allowing this development, the city would be negating this agreement and would also require zoning changes.
 If a proposed project of this magnitude would be affecting the residents of Old Town, The Hill, or even Leisure World, it would be dead on arrival.

It seems as though the city is going out of its way to approve this (considering all of the negative aspects of it). WHY?
2 Respectfully,
Zelda A. Rice
Charles W. Rice
4565 Birchwood Ave.

Seal Beach, CA 90740
1 Gloria Harper
From: Mindy Sander <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Schelly Sustarsic; Joe Kalmick; Mike Varipapa; Thomas Moore; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Gloria Harper
Subject: overruling the OC Airport Land Use Commission determination Seal Beach Council Members:

As a resident of College Park East I am concerned that you are having a Public Hearing tonight while all weekend there has been no public access to the Agenda packet and staff report on the city website. More concerning is the willingness of our city council to overrule the OC Airport Land Use Commissions findings concerning the adopted housing development at Old Ranch Country Club as it pertains to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. While I realize our city budget is always a concern, public safety should be at the forefront of decision making. How many more businesses and homes are you willing to force in around the runway while disregarding public safety? This is an issue that deserves more transparency and public input.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.

Mindy Sander
1 Gloria Harper
From: Schelly Sustarsic
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 4:16 PM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Housing Element for area near JFTB
From: david and kam kalish <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:02 PM
To: Joe Kalmick <[email protected]>; Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>; Thomas Moore <[email protected]>; Sandra Massa-Lavitt <[email protected]> Cc: Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element for area near JFTB
Hi, I am trying to get an understanding on what is going on with this situation. As I understand it, the OC Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the city's housing element documents, and rejected it due to its proximity to the base. I would think that these folks are the ones who would best understand the issues, and this is why they reviewed the housing element plan in the first place. So why is it that four city council members, who have no formal training in this area whatsoever, feel they are qualified to override the ALUC decision? I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain this to me. Couldn't the housing element plan be scaled down to something that would be acceptable to the ALUC? Wouldn't that be a reasonable response? I am awaiting an explanation that I hope will make sense.

Sincerely,
David Kalish
1 Gloria Harper
From: Schelly Sustarsic
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Seal Beach Housing Element Review
From: GARY ROBERTS <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Cc: ga;ry roberts <[email protected]>
Subject: Seal Beach Housing Element Review
Councilperson Sustarsic
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element Plan. The opposition stems from concerns of safety, traffic congestion, and potential legal liability exposure by the City and residents of the City of Seal Beach. The fact that the ALUC disapproved the SB Housing Plan as being inconsistent with the Joint Bases land use documents, and therefore, advocating exposure to any liability on their part, provides significant proof as to the issues of safety from this project. Locating residential units at the end of an active runway is totally unacceptable. When further considering traffic issues with no logical ingress/egress route for entry onto either Lampson and/or Seal Beach Blvd., only adds to an already choked artery in our local community.

I understand the problem the City faces in developing a viable Housing Element Plan as mandated by the State, but cramming a three story housing unit structure into an already congested area does not provide an acceptable solution. The City should provide it energies toward working with the Dept. of Defense to crave out a section of the Weapons Depot along Westminister Blvd. for the required housing. This provides a location where minimal impact to safety, traffic and liabilities are realized.

Please stand strong against the approval of this flawed Housing Plan and protect the quality of life for the citizens of College Park East and, indirectly, the quality for all of Seal Beach residents.

Thank you for your consideration,
Gary Roberts
4325 Elder Ave.

Seal Beach, CA 90740
1 Gloria Harper
From: Schelly Sustarsic
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 4:11 PM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Comment opposed to proposed development on Old Ranch From: Kathy Roberts <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 4:38 PM
To: Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment opposed to proposed development on Old Ranch Thank you for accepting my opinion about the possibility of this project.

I am vehemently opposed to the approval of this plan. The fact that residential construction at the end of an active runway is fraught with liability and safety concerns for the residents of Seal Beach. Traffic patterns on Seal Beach Blvd and Lampson will be impacted greatly.

Please do not let the other council people override the concerns we have in College Park East.

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.

Kathy Roberts
4325 Elder Avenue
Seal Beach
1 Gloria Harper
From: Schelly Sustarsic
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 4:09 PM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: OC AIRPORT COMMISSION OVERRULE
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 1:10 PM
To: Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: OC AIRPORT COMMISSION OVERRULE
Council member Sustarsic - Thanks for all you do in the interests of College Park East. Most appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Aug 4, 2022 1:02 pm
Subject: OC AIRPORT COMMISSION OVERRULE
Council member,
Do your duty to all the citizens of Seal Beach and DO NOT OVERRULE the OC Airport Land Use Commission regarding the Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan!!
Our small city cannot support the "Liability Exposure" of an OCALUC overrule. In addition, the ORCC Specific Plan is inconsistent with the adjoining neighborhood and will cause intolerable congestion.

Please do not OVERRULE!
Seal Beach Woodward family.
1 Gloria Harper
Subject: FW: Proposed Development at Old Ranch
From: Mike Varipapa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:54 PM
To: Jill Ingram <[email protected]>; Alexa Smittle <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Proposed Development at Old Ranch
FYI
Thanks,
Mike
Begin forwarded message:

It seems as though the city is going out of its way to approve this (considering all of the negative aspects of it). WHY?
2 Respectfully,
Zelda A. Rice
Charles W. Rice
4565 Birchwood Ave.

Seal Beach, CA 90740
1 Gloria Harper
From: Jill Ingram
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Gloria Harper; Patrick Gallegos
Subject: Fwd: Questions for August 8, 2022 City Council Meeting Attachments: JFTB Flight paths for Rotary and Fixed-wing aircraft.jpeg; JFTB Helicopter Traffic Pattern. Blackhawk EA.2011.jpeg; JFTB Flight Path. North Arrival.

Katella. Blackhawk EA. 2011.jpeg; DOT Caltran Aero. May 28.1998.page

1.jpeg; Caltrans Aero. May 28.1998. page 2.jpeg; Questions for 08.08.2022 City Council Meeting. Sustarsic.docx
FYI
Jill R. Ingram, City Manager

CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527 ext. 1300
Begin forwarded message:

From: Schelly Sustarsic <[email protected]>
Date: August 8, 2022 at 1:13:25 PM PDT
To: Jill Ingram <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexa Smittle <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Questions for August 8, 2022 City Council Meeting

Questions for April 8, 2022 City Council meeting

I do not know what was happening to the sealbeachca.gov website this weekend, but I must protest that the Prime Gov site was unavailable to me and to the public to view the agenda packet for tonight’s City Council meeting, as well as the ability to research material from previous city meetings. I did know that the City Clerk was working with Prime Gov on Friday and assumed that there could be an issue (I was interested in downloading my packet early as I had a busy weekend). I had a phone meeting with the City Clerk on Saturday and told her that the agenda packet could not be accessed on the website and asked if she could send me the staff report on the Public Hearing for the ALUC Overrule. I received this staff report at about 5:30pm on Saturday evening. However, I did not see the agenda packet available on Prime Gov until early this morning. (The Prime Gov site seems to have had a design change over the weekend).

I have read that HCD considers input from the public to be essential in the Housing Element process. I consider this Overrule of the ALUC to be of great public interest, so I would therefore request a delay in this Public Hearing of the Overrule of the ALUC decision. An 2 agenda was posted outside of Council Chambers on Friday, but there was no way for the public to access the Staff Report for this hearing before this morning. There also was not way to research previous meetings dealing with the Housing Element Update or the Consideration of the ALUC Overrule.

I have attached some documents for the Public Hearing.

The diagrams of the JFTB Flight Path (not only for helicopters but also fixed wing aircraft) and areas restricted to flight due to residential development were taken from the Environmental Assessment Stationing a US Army Reserve Blackhawk Helicopter Company at Joint Forces Training Base, Los Alamitos, California (2011). I have previously submitted these diagrams to the City on February 7, 2022, for the Special Meeting at which the City Council approved the Housing Element Update (these slides with flight path information are included in the agenda packet for that meeting). Two of the slides display the “do not overfly any residential areas” instruction to pilots.

I am also attaching a 1998 letter from Caltrans Aeronautics that I reference during the April 11, 2022, meeting.

Thank you.

Schelly Sustarsic

1 Gloria Harper
From: Susan Barembaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2022 6:45 PM
To: Gloria Harper; Joe Kalmick; Mike Varipapa; Thomas Moore; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Schelly Sustarsic Subject: Override of ALUC Decision
Members of The Seal Beach City Council,
Thank you for postponing the public hearing to allow residents adequate time to review the packet regarding this subject. I have read over the documents more than once and still am not convinced that overruling the ALUC’s decision is the right course of action. Councilperson Sustarsic and Planning Commissioner Campbell, as well as my fellow CPE neighbors, have submitted eloquently written letters stating the facts and providing supporting evidence to request your vote in opposition to this Resolution. I stand with them in vehemently opposing the Resolution to overrule the ALUC's recommendations. I hope that my letter will speak to your heart and conscience.

When I read the article from the News Enterprise about the accident that occurred in 1966 when a jet crashed into six houses in Rossmoor, that was enough to convince me that building a hotel or senior living facility on the Old Ranch property is NOT a good idea. I immediately thought of my elderly parents and how I would feel if they lived in that facility and they were harmed by a similar type of accident involving aircraft at the JFTB. How could I live with myself, having prior knowledge of the possible dangers, and still allowing them to move into that facility! Would you, in good conscience, want your loved one living there? Another concern is the noise level the people in the proposed buildings would have to endure. We live at 4273 Elder Avenue and unless you have been on our end of the neighborhood, you have no idea how loud the fighter jets can be! I am a proud American and I love “the sound of freedom”, as many people refer to the noise, but I doubt that frail elderly people would appreciate it. When the jets take off, our double-paned windows rattle and the whole house shakes. When the gigantic cargo planes take off, I hold my breath and pray that they can climb high enough to miss our rooftops. I have been in Target when a jet has taken off and everyone just stopped and looked at each other in horror, wondering if it was going to crash.

There are many events that take place on the base and at Old Ranch Country Club that also create noise that we can hear from our house. The Blue Angels and Thunderbirds take off and land on the base when they are here for the Huntington Beach Air Show which takes place over three days. They are a marvellous sight but three days of that extreme noise level would be too much for the elderly. We can hear the speakers and music at the Race on the Base and the 4th of July celebration. The fireworks display that Old Ranch Country Club puts on is beautiful but extremely loud. People have to sedate their pets so they aren’t frightened. Will the senior citizens living in the facility be sedated to keep them from having anxiety or heart attacks? The JFTB will also be used as the emergency staging facility in case of an earthquake. Can you imagine all the activity and noise that such an event will create?
The safety of the people staying at the hotel or residing in the senior facility should be the City’s number one priority. It only takes one accident to ruin the lives of innocent people and put the City into financial turmoil because we all know that the Old Ranch Country Club owner will sue the City for approving the plans.

My hope is that you will vote in the manner that will assure the safety of our residents. If the resolution passes because that is the only way to meet the State’s housing requirements, then the Planning Commission and City Council must uphold the current Development Agreement with the Old Ranch Country Club which is in place until 2029, and never allow residential development on that property. The City also needs to work diligently to find alternate locations to build affordable housing. As stated in the letter submitted by Gary Roberts, the Naval Weapons Station Parcel on the corner of Seal Beach Blvd. and Westminster Avenue may be a viable location. There is a bill, the Helping Open Underutilized Space to Ensure Shelter Act of 2022, (the Houses Act). This legislation calls for the federal government to sell for 2 residential construction the surplus land owned and managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Perhaps its implementation will solve the housing crisis in California.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely,
Susan Barembaum
1 Gloria Harper
From: Simon Housman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Gloria Harper
Subject: Public Comment City Council Meeting 8/29/2022 item A Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

This is a comment in opposition to:

I am a resident of the City of Seal Beach with over 30 years experience practicing Real Property Law. I volunteered on the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission from 2005 to 2017, serving 10 years as the Chairman. My comments focus on the safety risks to future families created by developing homes on the Old Ranch Country Club along the western edge of the golf course and near JFTB Los Alamitos.

A. RELIANCE ON THE CLEAR ZONE CREATED IN 1995 DOES NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IN 2022.

The Staff report reads: “AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at JFTB based on Department of Defense criteria. According to the AELUP, prior to 1995, the ALUC utilized a 10-year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located within the boundaries of JFTB and no additional accident potential zones are identified in the adopted AELUP beyond the clear zones (CZ). CZs are also marked on Attachment D and no development is proposed by the housing element within them.”
Reliance on the existing Clear Zones on the JFTB property does not meet the requirements of PUC 21670(a)(1) because it does not “prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems”. Public Utilities Code Sec. 21670(a)(1). Nor does it protect the current public health safety and welfare.

The standard size of an Army Air Field CZ for a runway the length of JFTB would be 1,000 feet wide and 3,000 feet long. (Department of Defense Instruction 4165.57, Figure 1, Page 15.) The CZ’s at JFTB Los Alamitos were created in the mid 1990’s pursuant to an exemption from the standard Clear Zone criteria when less than 10 jet or 25 propeller driven aircraft operations on a runway on an average busy day. (Letter dated December 16, 2016, Tony Sordello, California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics.) A lot has changed in the City of Seal Beach and surrounding area since 1995. The City Council packet includes the 2021 Total Traffic Count of operations from the Base. “Total: 140,406, Monthly Average:
11,701, Daily Average: 401, Hourly Average: 37.

The exemption applied in 1995 is not a reasonable basis to determine the City is not creating new noise and safety problems in 2022.

B. ADOPTING A HOUSING ELEMENT TO BUILD HOMES ON THE OLD RANCH COUNTRY

CLUB WILL PLUG THE LAST OPENNING FOR AIRCRAFT TO AVOID EXISTING

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO REACH THE OPEN AREA OF THE SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION.

Exhibit D3, shows by the noise contours that the pilots avoid flying low over homes as much as possible. They fly over the golf course and then the open space of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. There are housing developments on both sides of the golf course, making it the last opening between the homes. The last thing a crashing pilot will do is try to avoid buildings full of people. If you plug that 2 opening, you take away their last effort to protect people in their homes when something goes very wrong in the aircraft close to the end of the runway. In a study of aircraft accidents from 1968-1995 the U.S. Air Force found that 27.4% of accidents occurred within 3,000 feet of the end of the runway. (2005 AICUZ March Air Reserve Base, page B-4.)
Your package shows the City Staff has worked hard to meet the urgent need of the Regional Housing Assessment (RHNA). Minimizing the reality of changes to our community and the current level of air operations at JFTB Los Alamitos for a quick fix can have unintended long - term consequences. As has been recently demonstrated regarding John Wayne Airport, inadequate airport land use planning can create hearing rooms full of hundreds of angry citizens. An aircraft crash always makes the evening news.

As the City Council we rely on you to have the long-range view of what is best for our city. The opening from the base airfield between the homes was preserved for good reason. Working together, you, the Planning Commission, the City Staff and members of our community can come up with a better solution to the RHNA.

Your courtesy and assistance are greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Simon A. Housman
Attorney at Law
[email protected]
Seal Beach CA.

Tel. 760-328-7995
Fax.760-328-4985
This communication and any attachments, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, constitute an "electronic communication" within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., and may contain non-public, confidential or legally privileged information, attorney work product or privileged information, intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). Any review, reliance, distribution or forwarding to or by others is strictly prohibited.

The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2511 and other applicable federal and state laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, or you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you.

Simon A. Housman, Esq.
760-328-7995
1 Gloria Harper
From: Joyce Ross Parque <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 12:26 PM
To: Joe Kalmick; Mike Varipapa; Schelly Sustarsic; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Thomas Moore; Gloria Harper; Jill Ingram; Charles M. Kelly Subject: Location for more housing
Seal Beach has other options instead of the Air Base. Seal Beach owns land at the boat mariner at the end of Edinger Street, Huntington Beach. Lots of land for boats trailers that sit there empty. Boats are at the docks, which you can see left going toward Huntington Beach. Lots of land owned by Seal Beach and excellent for new apartments and houses. Why not the land on Pacific Coast Highway going to Long Beach.

It has been vacant and in need of something done there. Why not the land at the corner of PCH and Seal Beach Blvd that the Base has advertised in the local paper that is coming soon for building new homes.

There are other options out there. The City Council should look into all of those. City Council should open up to meeting.

Joyce Ross

Seal Beach City CouncilAugust 29, 2022

Seal Beach City Council
August 29, 2022