HomeMy WebLinkAboutRequest to Perform a CEQA Review for the Great Pacific Air S UNT�NGT� 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach,CA
_;' 92648
City of Huntington Beach RPve-D 4/_3
�C�UNTV CPS\'' i
B&L7-b Al-N19
File #: 22-1105 MEETING DATE: 12/20/2022
Submitted by Mayor Strickland - Request to perform a CEQA review for the Great Pacific Air
Show
Request the City Manager to return to City Council at the first regular City Council Meeting in January
2023 with a specific and actionable recommendation for undertaking an adequate CEQA review of
the Air Show. Chief Assistant City Attorney, Mike Vigliotta's experience in environmental legal review
will provide the leadership to retain the consultant necessary to complete the environmental review.
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 12/14/2022
:iov,rere❑ _c-oistar
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL MEETING—COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TONY STRICKLAND, MAYOR
DATE: 12/20/2022
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PERFORM A CEQA REVIEW FOR THE GREAT PACIFIC AIRSHOW
The Great Pacific Air Show is the largest event in Huntington Beach and has drawn the
attention and the interest of people from around Orange County,the State,and even the nation.
The Air Show is a special event that should be embraced by the City of Huntington Beach to
ensure success in years to come and actively supported by the City.
To secure the future of the Air Show in Huntington Beach the City should conduct a review under
CEQA to provide the City with insulation against challenges.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Request the City Manager to return to City Council at the first regular City Council Meeting in
January 2023 with a specific and actionable recommendation for undertaking an adequate CEQA
review of the Air Show. Chief Assistant City Attorney, Mike Vigliotta's experience in
environmental legal review will provide the leadership to retain the consultant necessary to
complete the environmental review.
Moore, Tania
From: Dan Jamieson <danjamieson4@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 2:57 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: NO vote on Councilmember Item#28, 12-20-22 Council meeting
Dear HB City Councilmembers:
I urge a NO vote on Councilmember Item#28 of the 12-20-22 Council meeting.
The item proposes that the city should consider a CEQA review of the Pacific Air Show. Such a review would
apparently be paid for by city taxpayers.
It is unclear if the air show needs a CEQA review, and if so, why the city should be involved in it and why
taxpayers should pay for it.
This proposal follows years of city subsidies for the air show.
While residents of the city and elsewhere generally support and enjoy the air show, it is a private venture and
should stand on its own.
Sincerely,
Dan Jamieson
•
Huntington Beach
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date. /1/9 /aoaa—
Agenda Item No.; affr(a - //els)
1
Moore, Tania
From: Linda Moon <Isapiro048@gmail.com> SUPPLEMENTAL
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 3:54 PM COMMUNICATION
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: 12-20-23 City Council Agenda Meeting Date: 00089'
i Council Members: AgendaItem No.; F( ar9 �,, )
Dear Mayor Strickland and City
I have been a resident and homeowner in Huntington Beach for 48 years and maintained a law office in
Huntington Beach for 40 years until my retirement. I have followed the work of the City Council for many
years. I understand that the new City Council majority is anxious to make changes and put its mark on the
city's future. I fear, however, that several of the Councilmember Items on the December 20, 2022 agenda were
hastily thought out and could have negative impacts on the city. I urge your careful consideration and measured
approach in moving forward with these proposals. Of greatest concern to me are the following:
Item 11 would raise the salary of the current City Attorney, who had no training or experience in Municipal
Law prior to coming into office,beyond that of all but one other City Attorney in the state, many of whom are
far more experienced, and from wealthier communities. While the City Attorney should be fairly compensated,
the current proposal is concerning.
Item 26,prohibiting anonymous complaints against businesses and requiring in-person filing will be
intimidating to the public and have a chilling effect on legitimate complaints regarding potentially dangerous
Code violations. The public should not be made to fear retaliation or retribution for reporting dangerous
conditions or be required to appear in person during business hours, something impossible for many
residents. The City Code Enforcement employees can quickly determine whether reports are valid or
frivolous. The proposal makes an upfront assumption that all reports are wrongful. The opposite should be
true. Code enforcement practices should best serve the residents, employees and customers, not make them
targets and endanger the safety of reporters and their families.
Item 27 seeking to raise political campaign contribution limits beyond the inflation standards previously
established will result in an unfortunate scenario in which only candidates with wealthy and corporate
supporters can possibly be elected. This is a recipe for council corruption and the elimination of diversity on
the city's governing body.
Item 28 appears to be an inappropriate gift of public funds for the cost of a CEQA Environmental Impact
Review, which would ordinarily be paid by the event sponsor. The benefit to the city in hosting that event does
not warrant the cost proposed.
Item 29 smacks of a full-on attack on services to the homeless. I suggest that the Council avail itself of the
knowledge of your competent staff to become educated regarding state laws protecting the homeless and the
benefits of the services now provided, before seeking to dismantle them.
Item 30 regarding the Orange County Power Authority may be better considered after full reporting on the
status of the Community Choice Power Aggregate and its potential for reducing dangerous greenhouse gasses
and saving money for consumers. As noted by the County Audit serious concerns exist regarding the current
operation of the OCPA. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater may not be the best strategy.
1
Item 33 will most certainly result in the city incurring significant fines for "challenging" and defying state
laws. Huntington Beach does not exist in a vacuum. Like it or not,we are part of the State of California and
subject to its housing laws. Most of the council members have had little education,to date,regarding how and
why housing mandates exist. We have already paid millions of dollars to fines that could have gone to good
use in our city for defying housing statutes. Continued defiance will not be productive or in the best interests of
the residents of Huntington Beach.
Item 34 regarding the RWG report appears to be political payback at its worst. I sincerely doubt the legality of
this city council "waiving" the Attorney Client privileges of the prior council. The report,previously made
public, explains to Huntington Beach residents why over 1.5 Million dollars had to be paid to former employees
and litigants who were the subject of age discriminatory tactics by the City Attorney. A desire to cleanse Mr.
Gates'record to facilitate his future political aspirations is entirely inappropriate. Mr. Steele,unlike Mr. Gates,
has many decades of Municipal Law experience and training. The point of the report was to educate the council
and serious issues came to light. Sweeping problems under the rug is not in the best interests of the City and its
residents.
I hope the City Council will fully deliberate and consider the need for, effects and ramifications of the above
proposals,with the focus on serving the best interests of the City and its residents.
Sincerely,
Linda Sapiro Moon
2