Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Compatibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission told housing plan is inconsistent with airport‑land‑use guidance; council may consider override
Summary
Consultants and staff reported a determination of inconsistency from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for parts of the housing‑element rezoning; the planning commission’s recommendation will go to City Council, which must decide whether to override ALUC’s finding with a supermajority vote.
The city’s housing‑element rezoning program drew scrutiny for airport compatibility. Staff told the Planning Commission that the Airport Land Use Commission issued a determination of inconsistency for the proposed plan areas near the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and that the City Council would need to consider whether to adopt an override if it proceeds with the rezoning package.
What was said: Sean (city staff) described the statutorily prescribed process: after an ALUC determination of inconsistency, the local legislative body may adopt an override, which typically triggers a 45‑day review period during which ALUC and Caltrans Aeronautics can submit comments. City staff said an ALUC inconsistency determination is not unusual for jurisdictions adjacent to military or civil airports: “Any city that was near an airport received that determination,” staff noted, and several Orange County cities faced similar findings during their housing‑element updates.
The consequences: Staff and consultants explained that if a city declines or fails to adopt an override where ALUC found inconsistency, the state could refuse to find the housing element in compliance and could refer the matter to the Attorney General. Consultants cited the Los Alamitos experience: after an initial council vote failed to reach a four‑member supermajority to override ALUC, HCD threatened referral to legal enforcement; the council later voted to override.
Public comment on safety Several public speakers urged the commission to take airport safety and noise into account. Shelly Sastarsik, a College Park East resident, said the EIR’s airport discussion appeared oversimplified: “The draft EIR, there was sort of an oversimplification of airport safety considered in the draft EIR,” she said, and urged a more detailed evaluation for sites near approach/departure paths. Patty, a longtime Airport Land Use Commission member who said she had served 24 years, told commissioners she had “never seen such crazy places to put development” and cautioned that the surrounding jurisdictions have struggled to reconcile housing demands with airport safety guidance.
Process and next steps Staff noted the Planning Commission recommended the EIR and zoning package to council; if the council votes to adopt the housing element and chooses to override ALUC’s inconsistency determination, state agencies (ALUC/Caltrans/HCD) will have opportunities to respond during the formal notice period. Staff said the council would need a four‑vote supermajority to adopt an override.
