The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1991-09-18 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of september 4, 1991 Minutes 2. Minor Plan Review 19-90 213 14th Street Applicant: Judy Green Request: Change from Option 2 to Option 1, allowing 300 square feet of habitable area and dormers with windows. IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Unclassified Use Permit 11-91 Negative Declaration 16-91 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Rockwell International Request: To relocate the existing ground level heliport to the southerly side of Building 80. Resolution No.: 1641 \.....-. 4. Conditional Use Permit 118-91 12121 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Rossmoor Business Center Request: To amend the original conditions of CUP 8-85 to install a new 72 square foot identification sign at entry into Center. Resolution No.: 1646 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning commission regarding any item within the subject matters of the Commission provided no action may be taken on Off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VI 1. .. STAFF CONCERNS 5. Status Report: Seal Beach Boulevard Bicycle Lane Proposals. VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS ---- IX. ADJOURNMENT - . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1991 was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CALL Present: Chal.rman Fife Comml.ssioners Law, Dahlman, orsini, Sharp Staff Present: Department of Development SerVl.ces: Barry curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 4, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Dahlman, SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 with the following correction: page 6, paragraph three, replace "said" with "asked". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Orsini Fife *** 2. Minor Plan Review #9-90 213 14th Street The applicant, Judy Green, is requesting to change from Option 2 to option 1 of approved Minor Plan Review #9-90, allowl.ng 300 square feet of habitable area on the second floor with dormer windows. No resolution is necessary for Planning Commission action on thl.S item. Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. the Planning Department]. [Staff report on file in commission Comments The Commission asked if exterior? Staff explained structure. the spiral stairway was l.nterior or it would be located insl.de the existl.ng e . . Page 2 - Planning Commission M1nutes of September 18, 1991 Mr. curtis reviewed the two alternatives to clarify exactly what is being requested. The Commission asked what the overall square footage is on the second floor? Staff said it was 500 square feet, broken down to 300 square feet of living space and 200 square feet of attic space. The Commission discussed the partition wall between the requested 11ving area and the attic space, asking staff how easily this wall could be removed? Staff said the non-bearing wall could easily be removed and the unpermitted conversion of the two hundred square feet of att1c space into additional living space was not prevented by any staff restrictions. Mr. curtis said a covenant could be placed on the property's title which would state exactly what the modifications are and that the 200 square feet of attic space is to be used solely for attic/storage space. It was indicated the windows would be in the 300 square foot area and the 200 square feet of attic space would have no windows but would have normal attic venting. Staff indicated the property is non-conforming due to inadequate rear yard setbacks, no garage and the carport is built too close to the rear property line without proper space to add a garage due to the existing location of the house. It does have two parking spaces but, because of an aluminum shed, you can park only one car. George Green * 213 13th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Green introduced himself as the applicant. He answered the Commission's question that the door on the right s1de enters into the kitchen. He stated his wife wants to use the 300 square foot room as a reading room/library. He stated he would agree to the placement of a covenant on his title. The Commission asked staff about the restriction on 1ncreasing the number of bedrooms in non-conforming properties. Mr. Curtis explained that if a property is non-conforming as to density it may increase the number of bedrooms. The Commission asked if the aluminum shed in the rear yard setback would be removed entirely off the premises? Mr. curtis said the shed could not physically be moved to any other place on the property so he assumed it would removed entirely. The second story storage room would be used so they could remove the shed. That would free up a parking space. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review #9- 90 with (1) the placement of a covenant on the property's title stating the 200 square feet on the second story is to remain as attic/storage space in perPetuity and is not to become living space, (2) allowing the dormer windows, (3) removing the aluminum shed from the property completely. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 . . . Page 3 - Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of September 18, 1991 AYES: Sharp, Orsini, Law, Dahlman, Fife Mr. curtis agreement, Comm1ssion *** indicated that staff, prior to would bring the covenant back for their review and approval. the execut10n of the before the Planning SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Fife indicated a request was made by Br1an Gibbons, Manager of the Rossmoor Business Center, to adjust the Agenda in order for the Planning Commission to consider Cond1 t10nal Use Permit #18-91 ahead of Unclassified Use Permit #1-91. The applicant for Unclassified Use Perm1t #1-91 said he had no objection to this. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to move Conditional Use Permit #18-91 ahead of Unclassified Use Permit #1-91. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman, Law *** 4. Conditional Use Permit 318-91 12121 Seal Beach Boulevard Resolution No. 1646 Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Staff recommended approval of this application subject to three Condit1ons of Approval as out11ned in the staff report by adoption of Resolution No. 1646. Commission Comments The Commission indicated the new landscaping was the finish1ng of an agreement from three or four years ago when Rossmoor Center agreed to bring the landscaping up to a certain percentage over a certain amount of time. Chairman Fife opened the Public hearing. Public Hearing Brian Gibbons. Manager of Rossmoor Business Center Mr. Gibbons thanked the Commission and Rockwell for adjust1ng the Agenda. He explained this is a request made by the Center's merchants. Prior to his joining the Center a year ago there had been many requests over several years by the merchants and the . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 association to obtain identity when entering Seal Beach from the north. They felt some people thought they were still in Los Alamitos. When the landscaping was going on the merchants made this request to him. The Center has over 10 primary entries which are equally used. The cost of these signs is $12,000 and is not mandatory. He said "About the only thing I don' t understand and we really could not accept approval with the condition is Condition #3". The condition reads: 3. within four (4) years of the date of approval of Conditlonal Use Permit 7-90 (June 6, 1990), the Rossmoor Business Center shall submit plans for a new planned sign program to the city for Planning Commission approval. Said planned sign program shall attempt to bring the Center's signage more into conformity with current design standards and the City's zoning ordinance. Mr. Gibbons said Mr. curtis had referred to Condition #3 as a condition that actually was imposed to their planned sign program ln June 1990 and it was overturned by the City Councll. ThlS condl tion is saying "... is that 50% of our tenants in the shopplng center who rely on their signage will no longer have signage. The current ~ requires a fifteen foot height limit, our sign towers set back from the street vary up to maybe thirty feet ... we certainly couldn't come in here representing the merchants to increase something that is important and at the same time tell them we're gOlng to reduce their signage by 50% ... we have been up here before, we have a Planned sign Program, we've had amendments to it that have all gone through the CUP process ... the reason I'm here with such a simple request is that the sign ordinance that you have does not address the largest and only shopping center of its klnd in the city. So any time we want to do anythlng we've got to come before here, pay our fees and listen to the same condltions be imposed over and over again after they've been overturned". The Commission indicated they were concerned with Condition #3 because it gives Rossmoor Center four years to come up with a Planned sign program that conforms to the City ordinance. If the Center had a Planned Slgn Program that conformed to the City ordinance the Center wouldn't have to come in for every sign to be approved. Mr. Gibbons said that's incorrect. He explained the Center has a conforming, approved Sign Program at this time. Mr. curtis explained the monument signs do not conform to the Code standards as they stand. However, through a Planned Slgn Program the Commission has more latitude. When that Planned Slgn Program was approved those signs became legal conforming signs. Slnce the Planned Slgn Program requires a CUP, any time that anything is done to a Planned Sign Program it does require coming back to the Commission, whether it's conforming or non-conforming. The Commisslon indicated there was no intention for any of the merchants to take their slgnage down. The City's involvement in . . . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 the signage is intended to be helpful and constructive to the merchants. Mr. Gibbons said the Center is not doing anything that is not in conformance. He said he was trYlng to avoid discussing again the same issues that have been talked about at many previous meetings. He read section 28-1803(3)(b). Mr. Glbbons expressed his frustration about having to come before the Planning Commission to discuss any alterations to the Center and felt the discussions were unnecessary. The Commisslon indicated he was proposlng to eliminate the very condition that would simplify that process and eventually make 1 t unnecessary to negotiate every sign. The Planning Commission does things in an orderly way while planning for the future. The discussion centered on whether Condition #3 was approved or removed last year. Mr. Curtis said the removal would have been done by the Planning Commisslon when CUP 7-90 came for consideration. Mr. Curtis recommended the followlng verbiage be added at the beginning of Condition #3: "Provided lt was previously conditioned through CUP #7-90". Mr. Gibbons referred the Commission to Resolution No. 1582 which went to the City Council on appeal and was overturned by the Council. Condition No. 3 was removed by the Planning Commission durlng the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 7-90. The Commlssion indicated that if that Condition was over turned by the Council it would not apply even if the Commission voted it in again. Mr. Gibbons said he would not agree to Mr. Curtls' wording because it should be deleted. Mr. Gibbons said the sign problems stem from the Code's not addressing the unique situation of the Rossmoor Center which is a 1950's era community level shopping center having its buildings set back 200 to 300 feet from the street and needing extensive on- street signage. Due to the dlstance of the bUlldings from the street a great amount of on-street signage is required to ensure success. The merchant's revenues which come back to the City of Seal Beach account for 30% to 40% of the City's budget revenues. The current sign requirements would require the Center to lower their signs to fifteen feet. The Center averages between 45 and 60 tenants and some feel they have inadequate signage now. Mr. Gibbons said they have suffered on signing leases on this account. To have to cut those signs in half would present big problems for the management. Mr. Curtis said Condition #3 was removed from Resolution No. 1582. Mr. curtis clarifled that staff's recommendation last year was to revamp to slgn program to bring it closer into conformity and have a more contemporary signage program than currently exists and not necessarily to requlre fifteen foot signs and strictly follow the Code. The Planned Sign Program does allow the Commission and the Center latitude as a special situation within the City. Staff will take that into account when a new Planned Sign Program comes before you. Staff would not recommend continuing Condition #3 because it was dropped from Resolution No. 1582. The Commission indicated 1 t was not saying they want a program that Mr. Gibbons and the merchant's don't like. They are saYlng they should be able to flnd one that can be planned on. The Commission asked Mr. Gibbons if he represented the Center's . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Commiss10n Minutes of September 18, 1991 owner? Because the Commission has been talking about crime 1n the Center. The Commission has been talking to the Super Saver Cinema Seven theaters about parking lot security. Mr. Gibbons interjected saY1ng "I think this is my dime. I paid the $250 for this and I'd like to resolve my issues here". The Commission indicated the sign was not a major issue but that the Center does have major issues to be resolved and the Commission would llke to hear what Mr. Gibbons had to say about the secur1ty problems at the Center. Mr. Gibbons said he would be glad to address those issues at another time but would rather pursue CUP #18-91. He suggested the Commissioners come into his office and talk to him. The Chairman advised Mr. Gibbons that the Brown Act would prohibit conducting business that way. The Commission asked Mr. Gibbons if he would be willing to schedule and talk about growing cr1me in the Rossmoor Center? Mr. Gibbons expla1ned he read" ... a little in your staff report ... that was kind of a circus that went on in connection with the theater's Conditional Use Permit renewal. I was concerned about that and I met personally with the Chief of Police. I didn't see one thing in the report other than a lot of hearsay of fact. So I met personally with the one that I think could tell us if we have a problem or not. And I would suggest perhaps that you do the same. I was told that we do not have the problem as 1 twas represented at that hear1ng. Regardless of what might appear or what you m1ght think of the owner's, me personally and our merchant's association together with our tenants that some people have been pointing the finger at, we have been d01ng quite a bit about the allegations that have been made ... if you think I want to get into some Plann1ng Commission publ1C hear1ng about some hearsay I'm not interested, I'll tell you right now". The Commission indicated that 1ssue 1S due back before the Commission soon and Mr. Gibbons was invited by the Commission to attend that meeting. Mr. Gibbons sa1d "I would certainly entertain the invi tation and equally so, I would request that staff and the Commission would have a basis of fact from whatever entity it is in the City that makes the determination if there's a crime program ... either also available to comment on it ...". The Commission indicated their own children had told them they had been chased by gang members and asked if that should be dismissed as irrelevant hearsay? Mr. Gibbons asked if the Commissioner had made any attempt to contact the Police and file a crim1nal report? Or contact him or any of the Center management? Mr. Gibbons said he could not be held accountable for someth1ng he had no knowledge of. He sa1d he felt it would be responsible for someone to report this so the management of the Center could respond to it. Michael Cho * Huntington Beach Mr. Cho said he thought the proposed monument sign is fine. He added that Condition of Approval #3 1S important and should be reta1ned because Planned Sign Programs bring uniformity throughout the city. He felt the applicant misunderstands what this condition really does. . . . Page 7 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit #18-91 with Condition of Approval #3 deleted by adoption Resolution No. 1646. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to approve Condi tional Use Permit #18-91 with all three (3) Conditions of Approval in place by the adoption of Resolution No. 1646. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4 - 1 - 0 Dahlman, Orsini, Fife, Law Sharp Mr. Glbbons indlcated he was withdrawing the application as not being acceptable with Condition of Approval #3 in place. The Commlssion stated their motion and vote remained intact. Chalrman Fife explained that Mr. Gibbons was not required to carry through with any change if he does not like the conditions of approval. Mr. curtis explained he has the right to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten (10) days of this decislon. Mr. Gibbons said he wanted the Minutes to verify his statement that if it could not be approved with the deletion of Condition of Approval #3 then he would withdraw the application. Chairman Fife said if the application is withdrawn there is no basis for an appeal. Mr. Gibbons said he understood this, didn't want to keep the application pending, and was tired of jumping through hoops. *** 3. Unclassified Use Permit #1-91 Negative Declaration #6-91 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard * Rockwell International Staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning department]. Staff had changes to Condl tions of Approval #2, #6, #16, #18 and #20. The applicant had changes to Conditions of Approval #2 ln conJunction with #21, #13 and #14. Commission Comments commissioner Sharp said he had a telephone call from one of the people representing Leisure World in these negotiations. That person was concerned about the monitoring equipment being required to be there for three months due to the expense. They felt Rockwell had been as cooperative as anybody could be and had done everything they could to mitigate the circumstances and to satisfy all partles concerned to the best of their ability. . . . Page 8 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 PubllC Hearing Ricarda Bennett * Heliport Consultants for Rockwell IntI'. Ricarda Bennett introduced herself as working for Heliport Consultants. She is an attorney with background in acoustics and aircraft. She introduced Dallas Pierce, Facilities Manager for Engineering for Rockwell and Chuck Ferguson, Rockwell pllot. Ms. Bennett described how Rockwell decided to relocate the heliport. Rockwell uses their helicopters in the daily business operations as a means of interfacility transportation between Canoga Park, Thousand Oaks and into Southern Californla. Rockwell has been in Seal Beach for 26 years, since 1965. Rockwell has had a heliport on their roof since 1967 and another ln the North section, close to westminster. Both heliports have viable operating permlts from the City, State and FAA operating permits. The Seal Beach community has voiced concerns over noise levels from the current helicopter operations on the North pad. Rockwell wanted to determine if there was a noise problem. On september 6 and 7, 1990 a noise study was done to compare the North pad and the roof pad. Results indicated that the roof-top pad nOlse levels were lower than the North ground pad but both pads met the City, State and Federal standards. Before the noise report was finalized and before Rockwell had an opportunity to change or modify the flight paths to provide mitigating measures, the community citizens approached Rockwell asking if the existing ground heliport could be moved to the south of the property in the south parking lot behind Building #81. Rockwell reviewed that site, had meetings with residents and Clty Council people. In December 1990 a meeting was held with Leisure World and City staff and dlscussed the five strategic site locations around the perimeter of the property. On February 2, 1991 an all day study was conducted comparing the roof top measurements to the ground level measurements. The fllght paths outside of Rockwell's property remained the same --- gOlng down Seal Beach Boulevard toward the San Diego Freeway. The flight paths on Rockwell's property changed to meet the new location (Figure 1 of the Supplemental Application). The results showed the noise operations from both helipads to meet City, State and FAA regulations. Rockwell wanted this dialogue with the City and community. To further mltigate noise, Rockwell determined the new heliport should be in the South parking lot. This meant that some parking would be lost, some buildings would be torn down and some antennae on the antennae farm must come down. This will cost about $250,000. Rockwell has submitted the FAA applicatlon so they can look at the navigable air space and also submitted the Divislon of Aeronautlcs application and their jurisdiction has to do with safe construction and design of the helipad. Ms. Bennett discussed the Conditions of Approval, suggesting changes to #2 in conjunction with #21, #18, #14. [Changes to the Conditions of Approval are highlighted for emphasis]. . Page 9 - Planning Commlssion Minutes of September 18, 1991 Rockwell discussed Condition of Approval #2 in conJunction with Condltion of Approval #21. They are willing to limlt operations on the North hellpad wlth approval of the South hellpad if #21 is deleted because #21 will allow for the planning Commisslon to review, after operations have been on-going, and impose changes to the flight path if needed to mltigate noise. It could also mean deleting the permit for the second helipad. Rockwell doesn't want Hellman Ranch development to be able to say they don't want the helipad there. If Rockwell agreed to Condition #2 that could negate them having a viable ground level helipad. Regarding special circumstantial landlngs, Rockwell wanted to go directly to the Director of Development Services and not delay by going through the Commission. . 4. . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Unclassifled Use Permit 1-91 is approved for the relocation of the existing ground level heliport to the southerly side of Building 81. The proposed location is approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the existing ground level heliport location. 2. The eXlstlng ground level heliport north of Buildlng 80 may be retained for emergency landing purposes only, normal flight operations shall not be permitted to utilize this facility unless prior specific Planning Commission approval is obtained. Special cir~lm~tance landings would require prior aQproval by the Director of Develooment Service. Pursuant to Condition of Approval #21, in the event that some restriction is imposed against the subject helipad there will be a corresponding recoupment of that loss of rights onto the North helipad. As long as the City continues to permit operations from the South helipad, the North helipad shall be restricted for emergency and special circumstance landing purposes only. The total helicopter operations for the Rockwell facility would not be net-net restricted. The Planning Director will be required to express his approval in wri ting . That writing can be a one page memorandum and will be a public document. 3. Final development of the proposed ground level helistop shall be in substantial compliance with the detail plan, section view and elevation plan, as submitted with the application for Unclassified Use Permit 1-91, submitted on July 24, 1991. Final development of the proposed ground level helistop shall be in accordance with all conditions imposed by the California Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Orange County Fire Department. . . . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of september 18, 1991 5. Helicopter operations shall be conducted only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditlons only. 6. No storage, fueling, or maintenance of helicopters will be permitted on the subject property, except for emergency repairs. 7. A lighted wind cone visible to the pllot from the helipad will be located on the ground and out of the helicopter approach/departure paths. 8. Heliport floodlights will be installed in the vicinity of the hellstop in order to provide proper illuminatlon for helicopter operations between sunset and sunrise. said lighting and markings shall be installed in accordance wi th Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Clrcular AC 150/5390-2, Heliport Design Guide, Chapter 2 or 3. 9. A mlnimum of two (2) dry chemical f ire extinguisher of at least 16 BC rating will be provided and located diagonally opposite from each other near the helistop. A fire hydrant is to be located approximately 150 feet away from the helistop. 10. An approved means of communication such as a telephone, radio or fire alarm box or other acceptable signaling device shall be installed adjacent to the exit from the helistop. 11. All flre protection measures and specifications shall meet and exceed the requirements set forth by the Code of the City of Seal Beach, and as required by the Orange County Fire Department. 12. Hours of operation shall be limited to those stated below: Weekdays: 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, 15 flights per year Weekends: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Sundays and Holidays Emergency flight operations shall not be subject to the above stated hours of operation limitations. 13. The number of flight operations shall not exceed 20 fllghts per day on weekdays at this site. The maximum number of monthly fllghts shall not exceed 435 per month. The City shall be provided a continuing summary report to . Page 11 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of September 18, 1991 be submitted twice a year summarizing the operations over the preceding six months by month. The report will show the number and hours of all flight operations utilizlng each of the heliport facilities located on the subject property. Security information is not to be included. The first report will be submitted to the Director of Development Services on the seventh month of operation. 14. The utilization of the following helicopter models is permltted: Model Rotor Weight Fuel Aerospatiale 355F 35.1 ft. 5600 lbs. 195 gal. Augusta 109 36.1 ft. 5730 lbs. 146 gal. Bell 230 42.0 ft. 8250 lbs. 246 gal. Bell 222A 42.0 ft. 7850 lbs. 190 gal. Bell 206L 37.0 ft. 4150 lbs. 110 gal. MBB BK 117 36.1 ft. (Lifeflight emergency helicopter) . Utllization of other helicopter models other than those whose noise levels are less than or equal to those listed for other than emergency situations shall require prior reVlew and approval by the Planning Commission. 15. Flight tracks for arrival and departure have been designed to mlnimize and reduce the noise exposure to any adjacent residential, recreational or commercial development. Normal wind fllght operations shall follow the flight tracks as shown on Figure 1 (Attachment D). 16. Parking spaces wi thin sixty-four feet (64') of the ground level helistop will not be permitted to be utilized by vans, light utility trucks, or other slmilar type vehicles. All parking spaces within this area shall be striped and designated as "compact spaces" in accordance wi th the provisions of the Code of the city of Seal Beach. 17. Prior to inltiation of operation of this ground level helistop, the City shall be provided copies of all approval and clearance documents necessary from the Federal Aviation Administration, Californla Department of Transportation-Divislon of Aeronautics, County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission, county of Orange Fire Department, and the California Coastal Commission. . 18 . Iffte-~e6--i-t>eM.-j:t)fl-~~~-fteJ:.Mt--ee.~-~fta:rr-!'\e~ re~~r~-4~~r~-ae~~~~~y-wftieft-~-i-i-~-~fte-ftei5e ~eve~5-~~~-~~~fi-~-~fte-eeae-~-~-€~~~-~-Sea:r Be~eft,-€ftft~er-~~. The Qroposal shall comply with all . Page 12 - Plannlng Commisslon Mlnutes of September 18, 1991 applicable local. state and Federal noise reauirements. if-v:i:e:l:a~:i:e"8-e:E--~eee.e-ef--e.fte-ei::-1::y-~~ Deal -Be6:eb;- efta~~er--r~B-~~,-~~~-~~~--~flft~~--5e ~e8~efi8:i:5:1:e--~~-~~-~~~-~~~--aftd--make a~~~e~~ra~e-mee.:i:f:i:ea~:i:e"8-~e-eem~~y-w:i:~ft-~fie-~~ev:i:8:i:eft8 ef-~fie-eee.e-ef-~fte-e:i:~v-ef-~fie-6ea~-Beaefi7-efta~~e~-~3a~ if- "flt)--v-i-o-~i:-ons--e:E- - ~fl.e-eee.e-~-~-ek-e.y-ef--4::he- Deal Beaeft7-€fl.'6t"ter--i-3i>;-~~i1lg--eft:t-&--ei-me-~er:i:eeiT-~fie "e:i:8e-1OOft'i~~-e:pparat.us--lftay-~~.--&a-M-fte:i:8e me":i:~e~:i:"~- appa~-~~--5e--~-~-ae.e~~a~e~y mea8~re-fte:i:se-:i:m~ae~8-~~eft-~fte-fe~~ew:i:"~-a~ea8~ at---~e:i:8~~e-We~~e. 5t---i8~afte.-V:i:~~a~e-fe:i:~y-ef-~eft~-Beaefit et---Ma~:i:fta-H:i:~~-~e8:i:e.e"~:i:a~-a~ea~ ~fte-e:i:~Y-8fia~~-5e-~~ev:i:e.ee.-a-meft~fi~y-~e~e~~-8~mma~:i:~:i:ft~ "e:i:8e-:i:m~ae~8-e-f--et-l:-l:-+~~-ons-i:l't-i~~fl~ee.efl.-ef ~fte-fte:l::i:~er~-~rl:-~~~-~~~~Sti~~-~~e~e~~Y7 8~ee:i:f:i:ea~~Y~l:&~l:-~~f~:i:~ft~~~~~~~e8~~~ :i:ft-~.t)i:tri:-i-ons-~-~fte-eee.e--&f-~-e:i:~y-'6'f--see-~-Beaeft, efta~~er-r3a~- . 19. To minimize noise exposure, helicopter fllght operations shall maintain the maximum distance and altitude separation from noise sensitive (residential and recreational) areas. Approach and departure flight operatlons shall utilize the steepest practicable glide slope (5:1). 20. Rockwell International will provide to the City a "Flying Neighborly Manual for Helicopter Flight Operations", WhlCh shall be provided to all helicopter flight operators, and which shall include but not be limited to the following provisions: a. The helicopter will maintaln maXlmum distance and altitude separation from noise sensitive areas such as residential and recreational areas. . b. Helicopter ingress and egress routes to the helipad should follow the west approach/departure path to the ocean and the northeast approach/departure path to the freeway (San Diego Interstate 405). The helicopter will approach the helistop at the steepest practical safe glide slope. c. d. A hlgh rate of climb, and smooth transition to . . . Page 13 - Planning commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 forward flight shall be used. e. in as noise Helicopter control inputs will be made gradual a manner as possible to minimize impacts. f. Hoverlng turns will be made with the tail of the helicopter away from the noise sensltive areas, if safe and practical. The most noise sensitive areas should be kept on the side of the helicopter, opposite to the tail rotor. 21. Due to possible constructlon of residential and/or recreational uses on the Hellman Ranch property to the south, the Unclassified Use Permit shall return to the Planning Commission for review, if it is determlned that the helicopter flight paths generate noise impacts which would adversely impact these noise sensltive areas. Said review by the Planning Commission may include, in conjunction with input from the applicant, all feasible mitigation measures available at the time, but not be limited to, possible modifications of the fllght paths or provlsion of noise screening systems. Chairman Fife called a ten mlnute break while Condition #21 was discussed between Ms. Bennett and her client. Dallas pierce * Rockwell Internatlonal Mr. pierce said Rockwell International is a proponent of the good neighbor policy and they will strive to continue meetlng all City rules and regulations. Mr. Lyon * Leisure World [No address given] Mr. Lyon said he said this operation and said Rockwell was most cooperative and friendly to work with. He was against a three months sound monitoring. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to grant Unclassified Use Permit with twenty-one (21) Conditions of Approval in place and as agreed upon as stated in these Minutes by the adoption of Resolution No. 1646 and to recommend to the City Council certification of Negative Declaration #6-91. The changes to the Conditions of Approval are to be forwarded to the applicant and Commissioners and both be given adequate time for review with provision for final approval on the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Law, Dahlman *** ~-. . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Curtis presented a status report on the Seal Beach Boulevard bicycle lane proposals. He indicated staff has met, as directed by City Council and Planning Commission, with the Navy Department. The Navy appears receptive to providing additlonal right-of-way for the bicycle lane but not particularly receptive to a parking lot on their base. Staff plans to provide the Navy with specific information regardlng the specific areas desired. Staff will ask for each of the desired items in writing and will break them into separate matters so they're not lumped together by the Navy when considered. Staff will provide updates to the Commission and the Council. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Dahlman thanked staff for providing the commission with a memorandum regarding the proposed perimeter fencing of the Hellman Ranch property. Mr. Curtis indicated matters relating to encroachments onto the Hellman Ranch were civil matters and the Clty should not become involved. The fence will be placed on the property line. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C\D~~~ Joc\n Fillmann Recording Secretary *** These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 were approved by the Planning Commission on October ~ 1991.~ - c: ~-- - --;: - -_:... -:... - - -.: =-..: -- -= ( ,5:~- --: -:~ -- -C)_~a~ tJh ~~nf tmmlSSID~ __ ~_ ~_ _ _ ~..~_.._= _ _ ~ __ _><_~__ - - - - ..~ _____...~ _ -SUBMJTTEDfORRECORD 't -. -. #' By~~!./{tl. ~uJ~ '.- /I)" ,,(;/ty Of ~ Rp~r, ~ PI"pn'rt~ ~lmrSSIOn c.:r:. SUBf;lllTED roq RECgfW ().. _ .7-9/ _ - 8~1~~/~'l Dale.~II.A'~_" ---Jstr~ ~/~ !:I11PI{) /3-9/ Btzll,g -hJ4ed &~ ikav . . ;/ /5 /!J3 -~ ,,-- - , - - ... ---------- ---------- ~- -- ....- : _: - - - -- - .::.......- - - - -~-~ - --- - - - - - ... - - ~ - -- ----. - - - . - \-- -- ~ - --~ ---=-- - ( '7 _1 __ _, _~_ __......J -"- _ ~::__ --- --eny . . . ~ , =- - - (s ) -=-- :-- -=-=-==--:-.::.:. - -.. - - - - - - - -- . > , ~ __ _ r - ..... -- -- -- - - - - .... --..- -------- -..--- - -~ - --- ~- --- - - -- - . ~~ ~etJk ~ /3-~- ()/3~~ ~ ~ ~ -~-ZAd ~~~I ~a /J-- .~~ ~~.. ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~a. ~cJvuf G: tJ80f ~c,t~ ~JCa.. 907f(3 S-yc2 -SC/z-z- . . ~y of ~1 ~~ il"IJ! \~..IIII~ ;.,,'111ml~SIUII , r- @ SU&M!'1to :t: ~o/~!~ !. .- 1- y~~ - _~____ _ ____ __ . . . . : ~ '~ c:J ~ ~ < r:n c: " :;.. ~ "'2..~..GtI \'L ~l"..Jl ~ ~ C~~s.~,"o-J {2~: \I.Arz..l~ee 7~ \ \Ae\.~ ~T \f~\~~ (l'-A. pJa..) '~'4.1 ~ \\'- S"~$I.1)~ A~ Ac. R.es.1."b eN7 4-r..J~ - -- - --(Du) ..J ei<- - .t AJ 'S ~ Ps. l ~ / - :I:'-~- ~\:""~c;.Ly A~(~Sl A"" ( A.\ e;u) '" A 12 l.A~ ~ (!) \J eQ... -r~e: ~S t:=T. ~CC=&.G.~l ~- b \.-' ~ e..&IU.. ~ NO c..c.J L /'oJ P l.A.C...t::. . We J:::::>o~' 'T" IV e-E.'"b ~o l~ e-R... \o-lSl~ k.T \J A-i2-\ ~C6'" t:':.. ASc.o ~ u c.-U A- 9- l A.s:C"" {~\ ~ A "l2.D~ e: /<.. RDR. , "' \ \.:i.. ~ \L i 0 .J J ~. ~~L~G ul A'S7 c:;,:; uR ~ S \ D € ( - IL:J~ ~ I~, ~ " - r " [ . . . 19 September 1991 City of Seal Beach Planning Comm ISslon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 0 L,S 0 N IS Date I 0 _ 01 _ if / Copy on FIle Dear Mr Wtnttenberg and CommISSIon Members, TIus letter comes in response to the proposed heIght vanahon m conJunchon WIth the remodel and addIhon to the Mashck reSIdence at 1631 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach My WIfe and myself would bke to submIt to the pubhc record at thIS tIme our Opposltton m the strongest possIble terms to approval of thIS request The above menttoned property 15 located such that, if allowed, the extra fIve foot heIght vanahan whIch is in excess of the legal 25 foot heIght hmIt would block a key porhon of OUT ocean view. ThIS would not be the case If constructIon IS hmIted to that allowed by code In addIhon, I belreve that approval would set an unacceptable and unfaIr precIdent to the taxpaytng CIhzens, such as ourselves, who happen to lIve Just behmd and share a beauhful ocean VIew WIth such propertIes ," j My WIfe and I have woBed very hard and have made a substantIal mvestment~to afford our Seal Beach home One of the reasons we chose Seal Beach IS the obvJOus great care that IS taken m mamtamIng hIgh buddIng standards As the CommisIon IS aware, these buddIng codes have m part been drafted to protect reSIdents nghts and theIr mvestment In the commumty It IS our hope that the commISIon Will recogmze theIr responsIbIlrty In upholdIng these nghts by dIssallowmg thIS unfaIr and unwarrented heIght vanahon It IS only reasonable to expect that Mr Mashck be hmIted m hIS construchon to the buddmg codes as they are wntten and adhered to by the rest of the commumty It IS unreasonable to allow a bIas In Mr Mashcks' favor WhICh encroaches upon the nghts of hIS neIghbors by blockIng theIr ocean VIew, thus lowenng theIr property value and qualtty of hfe, With a buddIng that IS out of code In clOSIng. I would ltke once agaIn to appeal to the boards' sence of faIrness, and to theIr responsIbIltty to the commumty to dIssal10w thIS heIght vanatton DOIng so would take care of thIS Issue In the most SImple and straIght fotward manner and would aVOld pOSSIble further actIon Thank You. Mr and Mrs MIchael J Olson 1514 Manne Ave Seal Beach, Ca 90740 {9~e11- D te /r~fl Date . ,- . . CIty of Seal Beach Plannrn . SUBMITTED FOR REC~R~ommISSlOn 81..,-D( >(01\/ '~ _Date 10_ Ol~ ~ I - 1516 Ma~ine Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 Septembe~ 24, 1991 Dea~ M~. Whi~tenbe~g and Comm~aa~on Nembers: This let~e~ ~ega~ds ~he p~oposed height va~iat~on of ~he ~emodel and addit~on ~o ~ha Maatick res~dence at 1631 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. Both my wife and I oppcse ~he app~cval of ~hi5 ~equest. We are ~he o~iginal owne~s of ou~ home at 1516 Ma~ine Avenue. We pu~chased ou~ home in 1977 p~ima~ily because of the close p~oxlmlty to ~he ocean and ou~ beautiful ocean view. We have closely monito~ed since we've moved here ~he city declsions involving build~ng code ~egulatlons. In the past, ~he city has taken g~eat ca~e in maintaining hlgh bUlldlng ~anda~ds, which have p~otected ~esldents' ~ights and thei~ investment. Howeve~, in ~he last ~hree yaa~s ~he city has allowed E~icksen Const~ctlon ~o bUlld th~ee homes (one adjacent and two dl~ectly in f~ont of us) wlth covered roof accesses (dog houses), WhlCh g~eatly obst~uct ou~ ocean v~ew and WhlCh exceed the helght llmit. If the Mastick ~esldence lS allowed the helght va~iance ln excess of the legal 25-foot helght Ilm~t, this would ageln block a good prot~on of ou~ view of the ocean. Ou~ v~ew of the ocean would not be obst~ucted as much lf the ext~ f~ve-foot helght allowance were dlsallowed. We thlnk that the app~oval of this va~~ance would Bet an unacceptable and unfal~ precldent to those of us who llve behind the Mastlck resldence and have lovely ocean v~ews. The allowance of such a helght va~iance would deflnltely lowe~ ou~ nelghbo~hood's prope~y value and quality of l~fe, WhlCh not only enc~oaches upon ou~ ~lghts as tax-paying citizens, but the ~ights of ou~ nelghbo~s as well. We a~e appeallng to you to disallow the helght va~iation of this pa~icula~ ~esldence, as well as othe~s 1n the commun~ty who should ask fo~ such a va~iance, the~eby maintalning the prope~y value of the homes with a Vlew. We hope that the Commiaslon wlll recognlze lts responslblllty ~n upholdlng these ~lghts (dlsallowing thlS unfal~ and unwa~rented helght va~latlon). It Beems un~easonable to allow the Mastick's to encroach upon the rights of thel~ neighbors by blocklng thel~ ocean view, when eve~yone else has to adhe~e to the code. S~ncel"ely, .tA--"~r. Jilj#. Dennis E.. Dixon ~~~~k S a~on O. Dlxon . . . SEP 'Z7 '91 1Z:2IZlPM 213-430-1636 P.l City of Seal Beach Planning Commlss(o\1 SUBMITTED FOR RECORD 01 Bl?tJ CG Dit@ 10 -:1.- 'II &I ~ ..0,;........ ~" .. ~ ~ II ~ I :J S-rAR K Septe~ber 27, 1991 LEE WHITTENBERG - 431-4067 CITY OF SEAL BEACH Dear Mr. Whittenberg I My matter i~ scheduled for the Pl~nn~n9 Commission on 10~2-91. My attorney has Just aovieed me that he will be unable to at~end due to a prior cornrnlt~ent. Apparently, he understood the m~tter was to be eontinu@d to 10-16-91. I understand Mike Colantuono 1S schedule~ to attend the 10-2-91 meeting. I request my matter be continued to 10-16-91 eo my ~ttorney may attend to represent me. If my request is to be granted, plea5e advise me by return FA~ or telcon as WQ11 as Mr. Col~ntuono. =-f>.nu--#~t --- Bruce M. Sta~!~ , PhonQt 598-2171 PAX - 430-1Ei36 ~ . . . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon ILK SUBMITTED FOR RECORD 8yL~)ALrterJbeRj Date 10-.:2- 9/ Resolution No. 1641 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT #1-91, A REQUEST TO RELOCATE ESTABLISH A HELIPORT AT 2201 SEAL BEACH BOUtEV~D [ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL]. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: WHEREAS, On July 24, 1991, Heliport Consultants filed an application for Unclassified Use Permit #1-91 on behalf of Rockwell International Corporation, requesting approval to relocate the cxioting establish a ground level heliport to the southerly side of Building 81, approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the existing location; and WHEREAS, Negative Declaration #7-91 has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Oualitv Act and City of Seal Beach environmental review guidelines and is on file in the Department of Development Services, Seal Beach City Hall; and WHEREAS, The subject property is located west of Seal Beach Boulevard, between Westminster Avenue on the north and Regency Dr i ve on the south. The subj ect property is bounded on the west by Island Village homes in the City of Long Beach, the Orange County Flood Control District Retention Basin and drainage channel; and WHEREAS, The subject property is described as Assessor Parcel number 095-010-054, comprising 99.65 acres, and is irregular in shape; and WHEREAS The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH Leisure World in the Residential High Density zone (RHD). SOUTH Seal Beach Naval Weapons station, the City Yard and the City Police station in the Public Land Use zone (PLU), the Hellman Ranch property in the Specific Plan Regulation zone (SPR), and single family residences in the Residential Low Density zone (RLD). EAST Seal Beach Naval Weapons station in the PLU zone. WEST Single family residences located in the City of Long Beach, the Orange County Flood Control District Retention Basin and drainage channel Plannlng Co..ission Resolution No 1641 ~ located in the SPR zone; and WHEREAS, The proposed location of the relocated requested helistop is approximately 150 feet south of Building 81 and approximately 400 feet from Seal Beach Boulevard; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on September 18, 1991, to consider Unclassified Use Permit 1-91 and certification of Negative Declaration #7-91; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission makes the following findings: . The number of flight operations will be twenty (20) flights daily and/or 435 flights monthly. . The hours of operation will be weekdays from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with fifteen (15) flight per year from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Typically there would be no flights on holidays and limited flights on week-ends. . The following types of helicopters are proposed to be utilized by Rockwell International: Aerospatiale 355F, Agusta 109, Bell 230, Bell 222A, Bell 206L. ~ · The proposed Unclassified Use Permit is found to be compatible with the type of uses permitted on the subject property and in the surrounding area. · The proposed Unclassified Use Permit will comply with the provision of Chapter 130, Noise Control, of The Code of the City of Seal Beach. · The applicant will be required to comply with all conditions imposed by all other permitting agencies. · These major design features will be incorporated: · Elevation of ground level helistop will be twenty feet (20') Mean Seal Level. · Takeoff/landing area will be approximately 84 feet in dlameter. · Heliport flood lights and lighted wind cone will be located adjacent to helipad to provide proper illumination and flight orientation . C \WP51\RESO\UUP1-91 PCR\LW\10-1-91 2 . Plannlng eo..1SS10n Resolutlon No 1641 information. . Dry chemical fire extinguishers, fire hydrant and an approved means of communication will be provided in accordance with Orange County Fire Department, Industrial Risk Insurers, Federal Aviation Administration and California Department of Transportation requirements. Flight paths are designed to reduce noise exposure to residential, recreational development. . If violations of The Code of the city of Seal Beach, Chapter 130 occur, specific penalty provlslons and increased monitoring efforts/flight operation modifications will be required. . minimize and/or any adj acent or commercial . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach does hereby recommend certification of Negative Declaration #7-91 and approve Unclassified Use Permit #1-91 subject to the following twenty-one (21) Conditions of Approval: 1. Unclassified Use Permit 1-91 is approved for the relocation establishment of a ~ exioting ground level heliport ~ at the southerly side of Building 81. The proposed location is approximately 1,100 feet southwest of the existing ground level heliport location. 2. The exiotin~ ground level heliport north of Building 80 may be retained for cmergency landing };:lurpooeo only, normal flight operationo ohall not be permitted to utilizc this facility unlcoo prior opecific rlo.nning Commiooion approvo.l io obto.ined. Special circumotance landingo ....'Ould require prior written o.pprovo.l by the Director of Development ServiceD, eai. appre~al will )0 . ,uhlie ,deeuaeBt. rurouant to Condition of Approval # 21, in the event that Dome reotriction iD impooed ago.inot the oubject helipa.d there ~ill be a. corrcoponding recoupment of that 10Do of righto to the north hell~a.d. AD lon~ aD the City continueo to permit opera.tionD from the oouth helipa.d, the North helipa.d aho.ll be rcotricted for emcrgency o.nd opecio.l circumoto.nce landlng purpooeo o~ly. The rla~ning.D~rec~or will ~e required to cxprcoo hl0 o.pprovo.l In \lrltlng ln a. publlC documcnt. C \WP51\RESO\UUP1-91 PCR\LW\10-1-91 As lonq as the city continues to permit flight operations from tbe south heliport7 operations fro. the existinq 3 . . . . Plannlng CO..1SSlon Resolution No 1641 ground level heliport north of Buildinq 80 shall be 10r eaerqency landinq and special circumstances Qnly~ However, in the event flights on the south heliport are restricted, the north heliport shall be utilized to the extent restrictions are imposed on the south heliport. Landi~qs on the north heliport Shall also ~ permitted under special oircumstances with written approval from the Director Of Development services~ 3. Final development of the proposed ground level helistop shall be in substantial compliance with the detail plan, section view and elevation plan, as submitted with the application for Unclassified Use Permit 1-91, submitted on July 24, 1991. Final development of the proposed ground level helistop shall be in accordance with all conditions imposed by the California Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Orange County Fire Department. 4. 5. Helicopter operations shall be conducted only during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions only. 6. No storage, fueling, or maintenance of helicopters will be permitted on the subject property, except for emergency repairs. 7. A lighted wind cone visible to the pilot from the helipad will be located on the ground and out of the helicopter approach/departure paths. 8. Heliport floodlights will be installed in the vicinity of the helistop in order to provide proper illumination for helicopter operations between sunset and sunrise. Said lighting and markings shall be installed in accordance wi th Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 150/5390-2, Heliport Design Guide, Chapter 2 or 3. 9. A minimum of two (2) dry chemical fire extinguishers of at least 16 BC rating will be provided and located diagonally opposite from each other near the helistop. A fire hydrant is to be located approximately 150 feet away from the helistop. 10. An approved means of communication such as a telephone, radio or fire alarm box or other acceptable signaling device shall be installed adjacent to the eX1t from the helistop. 11. All fire protection measures and specifications shall C \WP51\RESO\UUP1-91 PCR\L~10-1-91 4 . . Planning CO..lssion Resolution No 1641 meet and exceed the requirements set forth by the Code of the city of Seal Beach, and as required by the Orange County Fire Department. Hours of operation shall be limited to those stated below: 12. Weekdays: 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, 15 flights per year Weekends: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Sundays and Holidays Emergency flight operations shall not be subject to the above stated hours of operation limitations. . 13. The number of flight operations shall not exceed 20 flights per day on weekdays at this site. The maximum number of monthly flights shall not exceed 435 per month. The City shall be provided a continuing summary report to be submitted twice a year summarizing the operations over the preceding six months by month. The report will show the number and hours of all flight operations utilizing each of the heliport facilities located on the subject property. Security information is not to be included. The first report will be submitted to the Director of Development Services on the seventh month of operation. 14. The utilization of the following helicopter models is permitted: Model Rotor Weiqht Fuel Aerospatiale 355F 35.1 ft. 5600 Ibs. 195 gal. A\:lgusta 109 36.1 ft. 5730 Ibs. 146 gal. Bell 230 42.0 ft. 8250 Ibs. 246 gal. Bell 222A 42.0 ft. 7850 Ibs. 190 gal. Bell 206L 37.0 ft. 4150 Ibs. 110 gal. MBB BK 117 36.1 ft. (Lifeflight emergency helicopter) . C \WP51\RESO\UUP1-91 PCR\L~10.1.91 5 '. . . PlannIng ea..ISSIOn ResolutIon No 1641 utilization of other helicopter models other than those whose noise levels are less than or equal to those listed above for other than emergency situations shall require prior review and approval by the Planning Commission. 15. Flight tracks for arrival and departure have been designed to minimize and reduce the noise exposure to any adjacent residential, recreational or commercial development. Normal wind flight operations shall follow the flight tracks as shown on Figure 1 (Attachment A). Parking spaces within sixty-four feet (64') of the ground level helistop will not be permitted to be utilized by vans, light utility trucks, or other similar type vehicles. All parking spaces within this area shall be stripped and designated as "compact spaces" in accordance with the provisions of the Code of the city of Seal Beach. 16. 17. Prior to initiation of operation of this ground level helistop, the City shall be provided copies of all approval and clearance documents necessary from the Federal Aviation Administration, California Department of Transportation-Division of Aeronautics, County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission, County of Orange Fire Department, and the California Coastal Commission. 18. The proposed location of the ground helistop shall comply with all applicable local, State and Federal noise requirements. 19. To minimize noise exposure, helicopter flight operations shall maintain the maximum distance and altitude separation from noise sensitive (residential and recreational) areas. Approach and departure flight operations shall utilize the steepest practicable glide slope (5:1). 20. Rockwell International will provide to the City a "Flying Neighborly Manual for Helicopter Flight Operations", which shall be provided to all helicopter flight operators, and which shall include but not be limited to the following provisions: a. The helicopter will maintain maximum distance and altitude separation from noise sensitive areas such as resident1al and recreational areas. b. Helicopter ingress and egress routes to the helipad should follow the west approach/departure path to C \WP51\RESO\UUP1-91 PCR\LW\10-1-91 6 , . . . . . Planning Co..ieeion Reeolut~on No 1641 c. the ocean and the northeast approach/departure path to the freeway (San Diego Interstate 405). The helicopter will approach the helistop at the steepest practical safe glide slope. A high rate of climb, and smooth transition to forward flight shall be used. d. e. Helicopter control inputs will be made gradual a manner as possible to minimize impacts. in as noise f. Hovering turns will be made with the tail of the helicopter away from the noise sensitive areas, if safe and practical. The most noise sensitive areas should be kept on the side of the helicopter, opposite to the tail rotor. 21. Due to possible construction of residential and/or recreational uses on the Hellman Ranch property to the south, the Unclassified Use Permit shall return to the Planning commission for review, if it is determined that the helicopter flight paths generate noise impacts WhlCh would adversely impact these noise sensitive areas. Said review by the Planning Commission may include, in conjunction with input from the applicant, all feasible mitigation measures available at the time, but not be liR\i~e~ to, ~ooo.ible lllodif~cationo of the flilJat patho or provlolon of H01DC ocrceH1Hq oyotcmo. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 18th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner(s) NOES: Commissioner(s) ABSTAIN: Commissioner(s) ABSENT: Commissioner(s) Phillip Fife Chairman Planning Commission C \WP51\RESO\UUPl-91 PCR\LW\10 1-91 7