Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - PH-2 - Retroactive Extension of Time for Planni - 4/4/2017CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 4, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: PH -2 SUBJECT: RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: MARCH 23, 2017 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a retroactive time extension by adoption of City Council resolution, subject to conditions of approval, for the use as described below: ■ Conditional Use Permit PA -11-03 is a request to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The project was considered by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015, and it recommended approval of the project to the City Council, which approved the project on November 3, 2015. If approved, the time extension would be valid until November 3, 2017. APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT The applicant/authorized agent is Kevin A. Coleman, c/o Net Development Company, who is also the property owner. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Project Site/Environs The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. The subject property abuts John Wayne Airport (JWA) to the east. On April 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for a tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement included a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building (see site photos Attachment 2). This tenant improvement was finaled in October 2011. The second phase of the tenant improvement was to be the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad." The applicant's supporting documents, which are attached to the November 3, 2015 City Council staff report, explains that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than housing other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" is used to describe the proposed facility in this report. Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport (JWA), the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. 8 A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP was made on July 21, 2011, and is attached to the November 3, 2015 City Council staff report. According to the ALUC, their 2011 approval of the proposed facility remains valid. City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUPs unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b), underlined below, stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it was necessary that the City Council take final action on the CUP. Project History On August 8, 2011, Planning Commission considered the original request for the helistop. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the hearing. The Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting no, Commissioner Salcedo absent). The basis for the denial is discussed in greater detail in the attached staff report. The project was scheduled for the November 1, 2011 City Council hearing. The applicant requested several continuances before withdrawing the item from the City Council agenda on June 19, 2012. No City Council action was taken on the original 2011 application. In 2015, the applicant requested a new hearing for the project. Because of the amount of time that had elapsed between the time the project was last considered at a public hearing, the request returned to the Planning Commission at their September 28, 2015 meeting for recommendation to the City Council. Summary of September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2015, which included presentation of the staff report. In addition, public comments both in favor of and opposed to the request were received by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council by a 5-0 vote based on the following: • The applicant's noise study, which was not presented to the Planning Commission in 2011, concluded that there would be no significant noise impacts to surrounding properties as a result of the helisto ❑ erations. After the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant prepared a noise study for the City Council's consideration, which was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. The noise study, prepared by Acoustics Group Inc., concluded that there would be no increase in noise impacts to surrounding uses (including noise -sensitive uses such as the nearby Mariner's Christian School) because the subject site is within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of JWA, and that the helistop noise would be below this City, County, and FAA noise standard for sensitive receptors. At Mariner's Christian School, the existing CNEL from JWA is 62 dB. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. The noise study was updated by the consultant and presented at the September 28, 2015 meeting, and incorporated as a condition of approval. • The use of the helistqg is fora 2tivate helicopter onl — the facilitV will not be open to the general public, i.e., a heliport and will be limited to a specific number of flights per day and per week and hours of operation. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7:00 pm Sunday. This is reflected in the conditions of approval. • No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. According to the applicant, the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. Summary of November 3, 2015 City Council Action The City Council held a public hearing on November 3, 2015, which included presentation of the staff report. During the hearing, one person spoke under Public Comments in opposition to the request. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the City voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council by a 3-2 vote (Council Member Genis and Council Member Foley voting no). Request for Retroactive Time Extension Per CMMC Section 13-29(k), project approvals are typically valid for one year unless construction commences during that time. Since the project's approval by City Council, the applicant states that he has been working toward obtaining the required approvals from Cal Trans Aviation and the OC Airport Tower, as well as approval of the plans from the Building Safety Division, which are currently in plan check. Because these approvals took longer than the applicant anticipated, building permits were not able to be issued prior to the one-year expiration of the City Council's approval on November 3, 2016. The City concluded that a time extension request was needed for the project to move forward. As noted earlier, the one-year time limitation for project approvals is specified in the CMMC. Processing complicated applications, especially when the require approval from multiple jurisdictions or agencies, can take more than one year, thus requiring applicants to return to the City to file an additional application for a time extension. Most recently, the Ganahl Lumber project on Bristol Street required a time extension in order for the applicant to satisfy all the necessary steps before permits could be issued. Moreover, in reviewing this case, staff observed that the existing one-year time frame for project approvals is relatively short when compared to other cities. The City Council could provide direction to staff should it want further analysis of the issue - together with some options for possible changes to the Municipal Code. Also, though the City Council recently denied a time extension request for a residential project, that project's approval was valid for two years while this project's approval was valid for one year (approvals for residential projects with a subdivision map are valid for two years). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project was reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and was found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 0 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on the street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: 1. Approve the retroactive time extension as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Deny the time extension. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the retroactive time extension for the conditional use permit approval for the helistop facility. MEL LEE, AICP JA EVINO, AICP Senior Planner Development Services Department Consultant Attachments: 1 . Location Map and Radius Map 2. Site Photos 3. Project Description and Time Extension Request 4. Draft Resolutions 5. November 3, 2015 City Council Staff Report and Attachments City of Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA - [Created. 7/13/2011 8:59:53 AM] [Scale: 276.68] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Landscape] Overview Map Map Display Legend Street Names ,�trtaat Centerlin- es HLVU Freeway A/ L.Ines kY{'{TNt?;a Roads Hydrola t;olb�lrzr r F 1 W"V Numpart Street Names ,�trtaat Centerlin- es HLVU ;f Parcel Prwrar? L.Ines kY{'{TNt?;a "y 13"y Hydrola fly Channe - Water s yvays iG12Yrgz 1 wtir.r.4"a:ru!'rarp.MLt�411, (C) 2002-1 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 i sos � iR/TT Nt f!ll ESS �c 1 u t 44, r y � fit•.• j.3 f� � � t � � _ � �C�� � *,, 'F� � +, / lot (Ab p , SteiibtKlgr C�ttcpt% / � Ap ��► i If , k 't ♦� 4L in, i ltd t �4 -if r.+ �� w ; > *• LL � l wk 'lace Mtchclson hr �' � ^�_ ��� �r �'+ ►1ti �i,'�.��A. ,r SOU �"� r* / � �1" . {� r •��:,�, f 101, nutnont f . ,t� ifr�'�' '♦ ��� j �y SAN,JOAUU N Geli 1.0 1 f �40 /`''Z•\ � f r ca i �1� tlitirrrrsrly ,�� `,. w A � • « t. V Micllelw n W� q, • C* c� + ' c>f (;airfarXr,, lWi mAttoni�Mi CITY OF • • '' SQt1TH T ►iii �. .r i �ta��►rrn�,�a�d ,,:, �a . ; .,,r01 •! ,' erre rte•' • �f '---____— � A Y� �. ��t •. AIM Ar T. ur►Ao+�rt� � �' �► f - - ,S ,�•,•y� ` �. •tit ' Ji3eliWtilfrts a'.►fl�il��?_.�. 410 ., Proposed Iota#ion: 3132 Airway Avenue HeliStream: 3000 Airway Avenue Costa N1lesa Pore Department: 99 Fair Dave Source: California Department of Transportation Name Address Approval Costa Mesa Police Department 99 Fair Drive No CUP on file HeliStream (helicopter flight training school) 3000 Airway Avenue No CUP on file L.A. Times Costa Mesa (Newspaper publisher) 1375 Sunflower Avenue No CUP on file South Coast Metro Center (shopping center) 1 555 Anton Boulevard PA -91-04, Approved by PC 2/11/1991 Proposed Location 1 3132 Airway Avenue PA -11-03, Approved by PC 9/28/2015 10 A REAR OF BUILDING - PROPOSED HELISTOP/HELIPAD TO LEFT, CEO OFFICE (CURVED ROOF) TO RIGHT 2 K m z -I IV ATTACHMENT 3 KEVIN A. COLEMAN 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92B26 July 9, 201 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.Q. 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 RE: Requested Conditional Use Permit-helipad To Whom It May Concern: This- quest is to place a helicopter pad on roof located at 3132 Airway Avenue. This property is located against the John Wayne Airport at the Southwest corner. There is a current helicopter flight pattern already over the top of the property and would be compatible with current uses and permits in the general area. This proposed use should not be detrimental in any way to other properties in the same area. Lf you have any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ` -- �,,✓� vin A: KAC:klw la r U � t4r'v d}; /;-ins•+�i�. �� � � , C tY t 130.Aitwsy Ava, " + d • .� n010gIts ' slow f ! QYIy DNi ��7� 1 t if#1 � � � ♦''` a>. ��► �'i'�2'i0' ilV tlty�,',_°,�_. } I �+ _ . ,rA► ` %I.�'f_'`" �`Jt�, �� �� e January 9, 2017 Mr. Mel Lee City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, 92628 Dear Mel, Thank you for our conversation regarding the timeframe for the approvals we received. Our records show that after we received the approval from city council and the necessary paperwork for the approval we had to then route that approval through Cal Trans Aviation for their approval. Once that approval was received we then submitted to the OC Airport Tower for their approval of the flight patterns for the helipad. Once their clearance/approval was received we resubmitted the approved plans to the building dept. (this was done in late Sept. or early October, there are two appts. on my calendar and I am unsure which month it was that I took the approved plans in). The building dept. informed us that they had adopted the 2013 building code and requested we have the plans revised to reflect the current code; this process took approximately 6 weeks or so. The revised plans along with the approved set were accepted by the building dept. on 12-22-16, our submittal was then forwarded to Melad & Associates for review. As you can see, since the city council approval we have never stopped working on tasks required by the federal government, Cal Trans Aviation and the O.C. Airport Authority and once those approvals were achieved is when we came back to the city to turn the plans back in. I hope that clarifies the timeline for you, as always we appreciate your support and if you need any further information please esitate to c ntact me or my office. Kevin A. Coleman KAC:klw i� 3130 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • Phone (714) 754-4454 • Fax (714) 754-0198 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING A RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and i � WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015 and the Commission, after considering the evidence and public testimony, recommended approval of PA -11-03 on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015, and the City Council, after considering the evidence and public testimony, approved PA -11-03 on a 3-2 vote; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests approval of a retroactive time extension to be applied from November 3, 2016 to November 3, 2017 for Planning Application PA -11- 03; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 4, 2017, to allow for public comments on the proposed time extension and with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the original findings and conditions of approval, where noted, for City Council Resolution No. 15-59 (Exhibit 1) are still applicable to the project and attached hereto. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, the City Council hereby APPROVES a retroactive time extension for the time period from November 3, 2016 to November 3, 2017 for Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -11-03 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this 1 �7 resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 4th day of April, 2017. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA f� KATRINA FOLEY Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 17_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2017, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2017 N EXHIBIT A FINDINGS The original findings for PA -11-03 (Resolution No. 15-59, Exhibit 1) remain applicable to the project and are incorporated herein by reference. ao EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The original conditions of approval PA -11-03 (Resolution No. 15-59, Exhibit 1) remain applicable to the project and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, the applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval as noted below: 2. Approval of the planning application is valid retroactively from November 3, 2016, to November 3, 2017 and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by obtaining building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the planning application. 3. Comply with the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code, 2016 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code, and 2016 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. �i EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS [7i711111*i71YI I WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011 the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Resolution No. 15-59 Page 1 of 9 Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2015 and the Commission, after considering the evidence and public testimony, recommended approval of PA -11-03 on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City council on November 3, 2015; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, the City Resolution No. 15-59 Page 2 of 9 Council hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -11-03 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. fti Stephe ATTEST: D AND ADOPTED on this 3RD day of November, 2015. ensinger, Mayor &MA11 Brenda Green, i ity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thom s Duarfe, City Attorney Resolution No. 15-59 Page 3 of 9 24 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 15-59 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the V day of November, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Monahan, Righeimer, Mensinger NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Genis ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 41h day of November, 2015. f ,� '&� - Brenda Green, City Clerk (SEAL) Resolution No. 15-59 Page 4 of 9 0?� EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (for approval) The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on-site as well as those on the surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. C. The Industrial Park land use designation permits a wide range of uses, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Approval of CUP would be consistent with the proximity of the subject property to John Wayne Airport. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Finding: The conditional use permit substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(gK2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Specifically, because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general guidelines: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. On July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for heliports, on a 4-1 vote. In addition, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, Resolution No. 15-59 Page 5 of 9 0?� 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. The modifications to the building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properties. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. 3. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Resolution No. 15-59 Page 6 of 9 d1l EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 2. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Specifically, refueling and overnight maintenance in the helistop area are expressly prohibited. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 3. Any visible steel beams supporting the helistop shall be painted to match the existing building, subject to Planning Division approval. 4. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7;00 pm Sunday. 5. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 6. Helistop noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dB CNEL maximum noise level as identified in the noise study. 7. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost Resolution No. 15-59 Page 7 of 9 ME of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and the applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "Citi' pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. The planning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the planning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his/her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. Bldg. 4. Comply with the requirements of the adopted 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical code , 2013 California Plumbing code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance ) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Fire 5. Helistop shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. Resolution No. 15-59 Page 8 of 9 ;_I SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: AQMD 1. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD, Resolution No. 15-59 Page 9 of 9 �? C RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING A RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and WHEREAS, the applicant requests approval of a retroactive time extension to be applied from November 3, 2016 to November 3, 2017 for Planning Application PA -11- 03; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 4, 2017, to allow for public comments on the proposed time extension and with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the proposed project; and BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby DENIES the retroactive time extension of Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 4th day of April, 2017. KATRINA FOLEY Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 3,�Z STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 17_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2017, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2017 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (for denial) A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with uses both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. B. Finding: The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: • The potential noise impacts of the proposed helistop to surrounding properties had not been sufficiently identified or analyzed; • Although the subject site is not part of the JWA property or airport facility, the proposal constitutes an expansion of aircraft activities beyond the existing footprint of JWA; • Potential changes in the type of helicopter, i.e., the "quiet" helicopter proposed by the applicant versus the potential for a different, noisier, helicopter, could result in additional noise impacts to surrounding properties; and • The proposed use, i.e., a private helistop facility, provides no benefit to the citizens of Costa Mesa compared to helipads/helistops utilized by hospitals or law enforcement agencies. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has recommended denial of PA -11-03. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. ATTACHMENT 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR NET DEVELOPMENT CO. 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the helistop by adoption of City Council resolution, subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. The subject property abuts John Wayne Airport (JWA) to the east. On April 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for a tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement included a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building (see site photos Attachment 2). This tenant improvement was finaled in October 2011. The second phase of the tenant improvement was to be the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents, which are attached to the Planning Commission staff report, explains that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than housing other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" is used to describe the proposed facility in this report. A map showing the known helistops in the City of Costa Mesa and within the area of JWA is attached to this report for reference (Attachment 1). Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport (JWA), the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. I` 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP was made on July 21, 2011, and is attached to the Planning Commission staff report. According to the ALUC, their 2011 approval of the proposed facility remains valid. City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, ,pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. Original Request (2011) On August 8, 2011, Planning Commission considered the request. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the hearing. The Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting no, Commissioner Salcedo absent). The basis for the denial is discussed in greater detail in the attached Planning Commission staff report. The project, with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, was scheduled for the November 1, 2011 City Council hearing. The applicant requested several continuances before withdrawing the item from the City Council agenda on June 19, 2012. Because of the amount of time that has elapsed between the time the project was last considered at a public hearing, the request was brought back to the Planning Commission at their September 28, 2015 meeting for recommendation to the City Council. Summary of September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2015, which included presentation of the staff report. In addition, public comments both in favor of and opposed to the request were received by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council by a 5-0 vote based on the following: Thea licant's noise study, which was not resented to the Planning Commission in 2011. concluded that there would be no significant noise_impacts_to surrounding _pr_operties as a result of the helistop operations. After the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant prepared a noise study for the City Council's consideration, which was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. The noise study, prepared by Acoustics Group Inc., concluded that there would be no increase in noise impacts to surrounding uses (including noise -sensitive uses such as the nearby Mariner's Christian School) because the subject site is within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of JWA, and that the helistop noise would be below this City, County, and FAA noise standard for sensitive receptors. Af Mariner's Christian School, the existing CNEL from JWA is 62 dB. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. The noise study was updated by the consultant and presented at the September 28, 2015 meeting, and incorporated as a condition of approval. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public, i.e., a heli ort, and will be limited to a specific number of flights per day and per week and hours of operation. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7:00 pm Sunday. This is reflected in the conditions of approval. • No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities areproposed. According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(x) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A`public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on the street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. Notice was also provided to all persons who submitted correspondence for the project. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the facility to the City Council as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the facility to the City Council as proposed, based on the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the August 8, 2011 meeting as discussed earlier in this report. CONCLUSION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval or denial of the requested conditional use permit for the private helistop facility. MEL LEE, AICP GARY AR TR G, AICP Senior Planner Director Economic Develop, ent & Development Services / Deputy CEO Attachments: phntos - uta 4. Draft Resolutions 5. Correspondence from Public from July 2011 to Present in Reverse Chronological Order 6. Plans 7. September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts 8. September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Resolution 9. September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Reports and Attachments cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) File (2) Distribution List VE ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA - 11 -03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011 the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and q/ WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015 and the Commission, after considering the evidence and public testimony, recommended approval of PA -11-03 on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City council on November 3, 2015; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, the City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -11-03 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 3RD day of November, 2015. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY ti3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of _ 2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS for approval) 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on-site as well as those on the surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. C. The Industrial Park land use designation permits a wide range of uses, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Approval of CUP would be consistent with the proximity of the subject property to John Wayne Airport. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Finding: The conditional use permit substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Specifically, because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general guidelines: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. On July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for heliports, on a 4-1 vote. In addition, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. The modifications to the 115 building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properties. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. 3. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. �D EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 2. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Specifically, refueling and overnight maintenance in the helistop area are expressly prohibited. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 3. Any visible steel beams supporting the helistop shall be painted to match the existing building, subject to Planning Division approval. 4. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am - 7:00 pm Sunday. 5. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 6. Helistop noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dB CNEL maximum noise level as identified in the noise study. 7. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, t47 and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and the applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. The planning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the planning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his/her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be proNbited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. Bldg. 4. Comply with the requirements of the adopted 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical code , 2013 California Plumbing code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance ) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Fire 5. Helistop shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: AQMD 1. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. q9 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11- 03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS DENIAL by the City Council of Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 3RD day of November, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa �D ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 5-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the V day of November, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 5a EXHIBIT A FINDINGS for denial A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with uses both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. B. Finding: The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The potential noise impacts of the proposed helistop to surrounding properties had not been sufficiently identified or analyzed; ® Although the subject site is not part of the JWA property or airport facility, the proposal constitutes an expansion of aircraft activities beyond the existing footprint of JWA; Potential changes in the type of helicopter, i.e., the "quiet" helicopter proposed by the applicant versus the potential for a different, noisier, helicopter, could result in additional noise impacts to surrounding properties; and • The proposed use, i.e., a private helistop facility, provides no benefit to the citizens of Costa Mesa compared to helipads/helistops utilized by hospitals or law enforcement agencies. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has recommended denial of PA -11-03. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. fl—s— Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc.. F."ViTcy - October 16, 2015 Honorable Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Mensinger, I am writing on behalf of the Airport Working Group of Orange County (AWG) Board of Directors and our over 6,000 members throughout Orange County and especially In Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to express our concern regarding the Planning Commission approval of the application of Mr. Kevin Coleman to place a helipad on the roof of his building located at 3132 Airway Ave. in Costa Mesa next to John Wayne Airport (JWA). You may recall that in 2011 the Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners denied the same application on the ground that it constituted an expansion of the airport. AWG agreed then with the decision and we would like to express again our opposition to Mr. Coleman application based on the following criteria: The project is an indirect expansion of JWA beyond its current footprint. The application is a violation to the Corridor Cities principles. The project will add more noise impact to our communities. The increased air traffic will results in a degradation of the environment. For all of the above reasons, the AWG Board of Directors urges you to reject the application during your upcoming City Council meeting review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Khoury AWG Board President C C: Honorable Tom Hatch — Costa Mesa City Manager 1048 Irvine Avenue - PMB 467 • Newpo. Beach, CA 92660 www.awgoc.com /S? . >>•�rz � zi�rze • w..J:� . � .fic � lwi Claff zniic 9?G2% October 26, 2015 City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Honorable Council Members: Once again, I strongly urge you to reject the granting of the Conditional Use Permit granted in Planning Application PA -11-03. A helipad/helistop atop a 19'high building is a completely objectionable request, particularly as the existing building is located in an area already populated by many commercial structures. The construction of the helipad/helistop is a danger to those working in the area and is a green light to any other business/organization/individual to make similar requests. This is also a green light to an expansion of the John Wayne Airport footprint which will lead to the further enlargement and expansion of John Wayne. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is not in the interest of this city or its citizens. This helipad/ heliport is simply allowing the camel to put its nose under the tent so to speak and will only lead to further encroachment of the airport into our city limits. As I understand it, Conditional Use Permits "run" with the use of the land. In other words, that helipad/heliport will remain in perpetuity as long as that building stands. I believe this is the first of many requests the City will receive for this type of Conditional Permit. How do you reject a similar request for a business that may want to run a helicopter shuttle from the top of a building already built? You are about to open the floodgates. The only one to benefit from this absurdity is Kevin Coleman — and those will come after him. This cannot end well for the citizens of Costa Mesa. Please reverse the Planning Commission's approval and consider those of us who actually live here. Sincerely, Dolores Storme LEE, MEL From: AKINTRNL@aol.com Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:49 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: RE: Concerns Regarding the Helipad Decision Dear Mr. lee, I am writing on behalf of the Airport Working Group of Orange County (AWG) Board of Directors and our over 6,000 members throughout Orange County and especially in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to express our concern regarding the Planning Commission approval of Mr. Kevin Coleman application, to place a Helipad on the roof of his building located at 3132 Airway Avenue, in Costa Mesa next to John Wayne Airport (JWA). You may recall that in 2011 the Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners denied the same application on the ground that it constituted an expansion of the airport. AWG agreed then with the decision and we would like to express again our opposition to Mr. Coleman application based on the following criteria: • The project is an indirect expansion of JWA beyond its current footprint. • The application is a violation to the Corridor Cities principles. • The project will add more noise impact to our communities. 4 The increased air traffic will results in a degradation of the environment. For all of the above reasons, the AWG Board is greatly concerned with the Planning Commission decision for approving the Helipad. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Khoury AWG Board President Er IFu-�2- LEE, MEL From: Denis <denislabonge@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:31 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Tonight's PC mtg re PA -11-03 Dear Mr Lee, Please allow me time to speak in opposition to this application . I have been given approval to speak in opposition for 60% of the owners of this condominiumized commercial building. Thank you, Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Ave, 92626 949 433 5050 Sent from my Whone J% LEE, MEL From: David Heil <david@davidaugustinc.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:41 PM To: Denis Cc: LEE, MEL; Michael Gray; Mike Gray Subject: Re: Tonight's PC mtg re PA -11-03 Yes! DAVID AUGUST HEIL Founder I Creative Director I CEO David August Inc. Work: 714.545.SUIT 7( 848) Cell: 714.280.2300 Fax: 714.545.7880 D-\Lk 3140 AIRWAY AVE. COSTA MESA CA_ 92626 CALIFORNIA I LAS VEGAS I FLORIDA NEW YORK Stay In Touch With Us Online: WWW.DAVIDAUGUSTINC.CO3NI On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Denis <denislabon e(Rnail.com> wrote: Dear Mr Lee, Please allow me time to speak in opposition to this application. I have been given approval to speak in opposition for 60% of the owners of this condominiumized commercial building. Thank you, Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Ave, 92626 949 433 5050 Sent from my iPhone M01 LEE, MEL '?�-2 From: Dale Lyon <dlyon@olenproperties.com> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:52 AM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Helistop at 3132 Airway Dear Mr. Lee, Thank you for sending the staff report for the Helipad at 3132 Airway Av.. We are the owners of 3100 Airway. This project consist of four buildings and approximately 70,000 Sq Ft, occupied by +/- 35 individual tenants. We opposed the application back in 2011 and it appears the new application is a renewal of the 2011 one. The noise and safety issues have not changed. Therefore, we are still not in favor of the Helipad. Thank you, Dale M. Lyon Dale M. Lyon Senior Vice President, Construction OLEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Seven Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)719-7221 - Direct (949)719-7274 - Fax www.olenproperties.com Yq -- 34 JJtia J �+�e Uevcace (2.qmi. 92627 September 23, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: APP #PA -1 1-03 Honorable Commissioners: Attached is a letter I wrote to the City Council when this application was presented in 2011 which I urge you to read. Since that initial letter, flights to Canada and Mexico have already begun and has added to the noise and pollution to my and the homes in the immediate area. My strong objection to this project remains. I really don't care that the Airport Land Use Commission has approved this - none of its members live here. And I don't care that it has received conditional approval by the Federal Aviation Administration - again, none of its members live here. I resent bureaucrats trying to mandate policies that will not affect them. It's the residents of Costa Mesa who will have to put up with the additional headaches this project will bring; the entities involved reap the benefits while we "lowly" citizens bear the brunt of its consequences. I'm curious as to exactly where these helicopter flights would take /retrieve its passengers and how often. If successful, how many more would be added. We are all aware of the noise the police helicopters create when flying overhead. I have no objection to that; that's law enforcement doing its job. However, I -do object to the noise/pollution commercial helicopter operations would bring, as well as the safety issues would be raised. Approving this could very well result in more such applications, which the city will be hard pressed to deny. However, even more ominous is the fact that this could very well be a catalyst that will enlarge the airport footprint, something that would be absolutely devastating to Costa Mesa and its citizens; something that we absolutely do not want. This is not LAX. John Wayne is still a relatively small airport — regardless of whether you put "International" in its title. The city should be making every effort to avoid steps that might lead to a larger, busier John Wayne Airport. Two previous City Councils wisely rejected this application. I urge you the same. Please put the quality of life and welfare of the citizens you represent first and foremost. Sincerely .r' Dolores Storme Attachment c� Go�e/� � iotirr�,e 182 &t. DL.., C`'aq.. 92627 August 23, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: App #PA -11-03 Honorable Council Members: I write this letter in opposition to your approving the subject application. I do not believe approving this application request is in the best interests of the citizens of Costa Mesa. While the proposed helipad will be located atop a building next to the airport runways, it nevertheless may be construed as a way to enlarge the airport footprint. In addition, any helicopters using the helipad will be able to access it by flying over residential areas of Costa Mesa. There is enough air and noise pollution emanating from John Wayne Airport as it is; we do not need any more. I believe there are also safety concerns. We don't need any addition risks (remember the helicopter crash at New York's Pan Am building?) along with what is already present with planes from John Wayne taking off/landing over residential areas. Another thing to consider — just how many helicopter flights are planned — and how many more if this venture is successful. Approve this application and I am certain Legacy will return with their ambitious plans which would also further enlarge the airport footprint. The previous Council wisely turned Legacy down. Why risk having the camel put his nose under the tent by approving the subject application. This is not far-fetched. The new terminal at John Wayne will have everything needed for easy international travel — customs, immigration, etc. Obviously the airport planners are anticipating expanded service to Canada — and who knows where else. How convenient to have a helipad for passengers wanting to avoid the mess that is LAX. If successful, there will be more applications for helipads. You have to think long term here. Again, I urge the Council to reject this application — regardless of what governmental agencies have given it their blessings. The citizens of Costa Mesa must come first. Sincerely, Dolores Storme W P.O. BOX 1700 • 77 FAIR DRIVE . CALIFORNIA 97673-1300 • (711) 755245 City of Costa Mesa TELEPHONE RECORD Date: September 15, 2015 Name: Lea Choum, Land Use Manager, John Wayne Airport Address: 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa Call Received by: Mel Lee COIYIMENTS: (Use Back or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary) —11 Lea Choum confirmed that as long as no changes have been made to the proposed helistop/helipad ay 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03 ), the approval of the location and use by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on July 21, 2011 is still valid (phone # 949.252.5123). �a LEE, MEL Subject: FW: Proposed Helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03) Attachments: MX -3116N 20150909082502.pdf From: Brandt, Kim[mailto:KBrandt@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 4:52 PM To: LEE, MEL <MEL.LEE@costamesaca.gov> Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FLYNN @costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Proposed Helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03) Hello Mel, Thank you For consulting the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue. As you noted in your email, the City of Newport Beach did send the attached letter dated August 5, 2011 expressing concerns regarding the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services private -use helistop project in view of the Corridor Cities' principles. If indeed, this 2015 helipad proposal is a renewal of the 2011 application, the City of Newport Beach's concerns remain as stated in the attached August 2011 letter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ",C t' ir, 3 r nd t, x1-12,," Co'rr,•r,ti+rtiits+ �e✓�lv��r,znt 1�irzctor �4 644-3220 www. n ewoo rtbe ac he a. Rov uy.•INN x �3 August 5, 2011 The Honorable Gary Monahan Mayor, City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive MG . 5 PA -11'°3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Colin McCarthy Chairman of the Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Proposed "Leading Edge Aviation Services" Heliport at 3132 Airway Avenue Dear Mayor Monahan and Chairman McCarthy: Our City has long appreciated the City of Costa Mesa's cooperative work as a member of the "Corridor Cities" to keep John Wayne Airport (JWA) a "neighborhood -friendly" airport. Additionally, our two cities adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in October 2008 (attached) which underscored our collective commitment to protect our citizens from adverse impacts of operations at JWA. Together we have partnered to attempt to limit the expansion of JWA and to block any negative change in 1WA's operational characteristics, including operational hours, the passenger caps, and the limits on average daily departures of the loudest commercial planes. It is in the spirit of our mutual commitment that we offer these comments. At the core of the October 2008 MOU is the philosophy that: 'the Cities believe it is in their respective best interests to foster a closer working relationship between the Cities and to keep each other informed of issues that relate to JWA; to look for opportunities to assist one another, to work together to implement strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve the primary objective of protecting their residents and that the strategies and plans must consider and respect the complex legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and impacts; ..." Goals within the MOU Include: A. Ensuring that no actions are taken at JWA which would negatively alter the quality of life, and that any such actions are otherwise in the best long term interests, of the residents of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa; B. Ensuring communication by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and their residents and community groups concerned about the impacts of JWA; C. Oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2008) boundary footprint; and D. Ensure that regional plans are consistent with the legal and practical constraints on air carrier service at JWA; 0 Letter to Mayor Monahan and Mr. McCarthy August 5, 2011 Page 2 The Corridor Cities' adopted principles include: • To oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2007) footprint. It is JWA's geographic constraints that give both of our communities the added assurance that JWA will remain neighborhood -friendly. In evaluating the "Legacy Air" project in March 2010, your community cited the Corridor Cities' Principles to limit the potential expansion of the airport footprint. We greatly appreciated Costa Mesa's response to the Legacy Air project. Its 2.7 -acre expansion of the security and airport zone, which some might have seen as minor, was seen by both of our communities as a breach in the containment wall along the westside of JWA and a violation of the principles set forth above.. It is with a similar view that our community has looked at the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services private -use helistop at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. As you may be aware, Council Member Leslie Daigle, who serves on the Airport Land Use Commission, could not find that the Leading Edge project was consistent with the JWA Airport Land Use Plan. She did so in part because of questions she raised which were not answered satisfactorily — including the lack of a noise study, an inability of any municipality to control flights or limit hours of operation, and questions about the specific number of takeoffs and landings permitted (four versus six). Our City, of course, is interested in our region's economic development, and we do not wish to attempt to intervene in your economic interests. However, we did want to express our respectful concern about the Leading Edge project as viewed through the lens of the Corridor Cities' principles. We have no doubt that your respective decision-making bodies will thoughtfully and carefully examine whether Leading Edge should be approved in light of Costa Mesa's strong commitment to the Corridor Cities' principles. We look forward to working with you an this and other issues of mutual interest, including any discussions you might wish to have on airport and boundary issues. We value your continued cooperation and partnership in municipal governance and protecting the quality of life that our two cities' residents expect. If you have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, M I Cf- i E iV N Mayor of Newport Beach Cl� Attachment: October 2008 MOU between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Allan Murphy, John Wayne Airport kJJ� 4 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ("Newport") and the CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ("Costa Mesa"), hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the "Cines", this JWfi day of &#'o , 2008. WHEREAS, Newport and Costa Mesa are committed to protecting their respective residents from: the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John: Mayne Airport (JWA); and WHEREAS, the Cities believe that airport impacts are now, and will continue to be a significant great to the quality of life of their respective residents; and WHEREAS, the Cities believe it is in their respective best iryterests to foster a closer working relationship between the CRiies and to keep each other informed of issues that relate to JWA; to look for opportunities to assist one another, to work together to implement strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve the primary objective of protecting their residents and that the strategies and plans must consider and respect the complex legal, political and economic Factors relevant to airport operations and impacts; and WHEREAS, the Cities recognize that a thorough understanding of airport operations and impacts is necessary in dealing with JWA and the factors include but are not limited to: State and Federal law; the attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA; the regional demand for air transportation; regional and sub -regional planning and transportation programs and policies; the decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other local, State and Federal representatives and officials; and the opinions and concerns of Orange County residents and business owners, and WHEREAS, a number of relevant factors and the complexity of the issues related to adverse airport impacts mean that no single approach or simple strategy will be successful in achieving the Cities` primary objectives and that the Cities will be able to achieve their primary objectives only if their strategies and action pians reflect a thorough understanding and consideration of these factors and that if the two (2) Cities work together to achieve their respective goals the likelihood of success increases. NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa desire to work together to achieve the following objectives and targe the following action and agree as follows: 4 OBJECTIVES k Establish a Working relationship between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and provide support to one another regarding JWA. This objective can be achieved by encouraging joint meetings between the elected officials of the two (2) Cities; joint meetings between staff of the respective Cities, including but not limited to having a designated representative of the City of Costa Mesa attend the monthly Aviation Committee meeting of the City of Newport Beach with full membership on the Committee. 2. Establish a dialogue and forum between the Cities to discuss ways in which the two Cities can protect their residents from the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport. These objectives can be achieved by the exchange of information, including but not limited to technical information as it relates to the JWA, by and among, elected officials and the staff of the two (2) Cities, the involvement of community groups within the Cities. Encourage a joint public forum of the elected officials, with the participation of technical experts, consultants and resident groups at least once a year. Meanwhile each City will identify a principal contact for the purposes of exchanging information and meeting with a representative of the other City on a continuing basis regarding JWA. The Cities expect that the joint forum will develop a plan of action; review and assess cooperative activities between the Cities; recommend ways to improve cooperation and undertake such activities as the Cities deem necessary. 3. Establish a working relationship by and between staff on an as needed basis, with exchange of information as it relates to airport operations and impacts. The foregoing exchange of information should include but not be limited to: State and Federal law; Environmental impacts, noise, air quality, water qualify, the attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA, Regional: and sub -regional planning and transportation programs and policies; the decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Grange County Board of Supervisors and other local, State and Federal representatives and officials, and the opinions and concems of Orange County residents. The meeting of staff should occur no less than once ('l) a month. 4. Use the established relationship of the Cities to work with other cities in Orange County California, including but not limited to the "Corridor Cities" of Santa Ana, Orange, Anaheim, Tustin and Irvine, all of whom are adversely impacted by commercial aircraft operations at JWA and explore mechanisms for formalizing the relationship of the Corridor Cities. S. Establish a working relationship with the County of Orange and continually exchange information as it relates to airport operations and impacts, bi A I'' 6. Establish a mechanism for the joint financing by the Cities of the foregoing stated objectives and the attainment of the goals as hereinafter set forth. GOALS 7. The objectives as outlined above would be adopted with the goals of. A. Ensuring that no actions are taken at JWA which would negatively alter the quality of life, and that any such actions are otherwise in the best long term interests of the residents of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa; B. Ensuring that there be no modification to the County's airport noise curfew including but not limited to opposing any change to air carrier or general aviation noise ordinances; C. Ensuring that no actions would be taken that could lead to the construction of a second air carrier runway at JWA or extension of the existing runway(s); D. Ensuring that any and/or all steps necessary be taken to protect and preserve the validity of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to any amendments thereto; E. Ensuring communication by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and their residents and community groups concerned about the impacts of JWA; F. Oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2005) boundary footprint; G. Oppose any significant reduction in general aviation operations/facilities; H. Ensure that regional plans are consistent with the legal and practical constraints on air carrier service at JWA; I. Oppose any attempt by out -of county entities to assume any ownership of, or operational control over, JWA; J. In cooperation with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other public agencies, actively support development and implementation of proposals that enable Orange County residents and businesses to conveniently access underused out -of -county airports using roadway improvements and air passenger rail links. a MISCELLANEOUS L 8. Termination. This Memorandum of Understanding CMOUJ shall take effect as of the date first set forth hereinabove and shag remain effective until terminated by the Cities Hereto. Either party to this MOU may terminate this MOU without cause at anytime by giving a thirty (30) day written notice to the ager party. Any notice provided hereunder shall be deemed given when personally delivered to the other party or three (3) days after the date the notice is deposited In the United States mail, first-class postage paid, and addressed to the appropriate representative as specified in this MOU. 9. Modifi"dons. Modifications within the scope of this MOU small be made by mutual consent of the Parfies, by the issuance of an executed written modification, signed and dated by all Parties. 10. Voluntary. This MOU reflects an entirely voluntary commitment between the Parties. This MOU in no way obligates or restricts the activity of any party nor shall it in any way interfere with the governance by the Cities of their respective Cities. No Party shall have any right, power, or authority to create any obligation, express or implied, on behalf of any other Party or Parties. 11, Indemnify. The City of Newport Beach agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City of Costa Mesa, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers harmless against and from any and all losses, claims, actions, damages, expenses or liabilities, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising out of or in any way connected with the City of Newport Beach's negligent performance of this MOU. Newport Beach assumes worker's compensAOn liability for injury or death of its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, and assumes no worker's compensation responsibility for the elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees of Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City of Newport Beach, its elected and appointed officials,. officers, agents, employees and volunteers harmless against and from any and all losses, claims, actions, damages, expenses or liabilities, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or in any way connected with Costa Mesa's negligent performance of this MOU. Costa Mesa assumes workers compensation liability for injury or death of Its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees, and assumes no worker's compensation responsibility for the officers, agents, employees and volunteers of Newport Beach. 12. No Assignment. This MOU may not be assigned or transferred by either Party without the express written consent of the other Party. 6 4 13. Notice, The Cies have designated the following representatives to receive notices and act on their City's behalf in the administration of this MOU: City of Newport Bead Homer L. Bludau, City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 City of Costa Mesa Allan. Raeder, City Manager 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 14, Additional Documents, The Cities agree promptly to execute or cause to be executed any and ail documents now or hereafter necessary to effectuate the purpose of this MOU. 15. Headings. The headings used in this MOU appear strictly for the Cities' convenience in Identifying the provisions of this MOU and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this MOU. 16. No Third Party Beneficiary. No third party is an intended or implied beneficiary of this MOU. `7 D 4 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE CAUSED THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO BE EXECUTED THE DATE FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. ATTEST: NEWPORT BEACH, Mayor for the City of Newport Beach 64d&" M - 4z-4&'2'2 Ok City Clerk io4r for the City of Newport Beach it ! Page 1 of 11 LEE, MEL From: Denis LaBonge [rlabonge@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:19 AM To: LEE, MEL Cc: Dave Kiff Subject: Helipad application PA -11-03 at 3132 Airway Ave Dear Mr Lee, The following photos additionally demonstrate the clear risk to safety. These High Voltage wires are DIRECTLY in the claimed ingress /egress flight path and nearly same elevation noted in Conditional Use Application PA -11-03. There are 6 occupied privately owned business condominiums .Three owners have submitted written opposition to the Costa Mesa City Council to the application ( I own 3136 Airway), one abstains at last count. That means a majority on this site opposes this proposed Helipad that serves only one man, one company , who is already well served when he parks his helicopter within the existing SNA boundaries. I am out of town until July 17th. I am asking that you forward this letter and photos to the entire Costa Mesa City Council and postpone any further discussion on this matter until I return. The applicant, Mr Coleman, has certainly been granted several extensions previously, as I do now. Thank you for your consideration. Denis LaBonge 38 Via Coralle Newport Coast, 92657 949 433 5050 DSC -0599 /-C�z 06/27/2012 }� ';ri'• .moi• : _ - nr. ,j.};u .,�. ��' ". .. _..— '_' .d • y� . }s ,;- �....; �.- :syr ,`itr`t'�:�:—". r_?�-: � �Yr .�..•..aTWi+f.SiJ _ � RSA _...• .r� Page 3 of 11 .' .�•..- .f��� .i,1:fy1... .. � �Z, Kms. 14, DSC -0606 7v 06/27/2012 lot - - .. .. .. . " •. ��_ ?rte 6.r. ,.-..... .. - - to • xi - - '"�3.`' 'r:'`r•�• % Y 1 •.J' } i ��•r.�• •YS1�J r • r irk •. - 's` :l •i+117 . yy��,:.r.. _ .c i•_ 1 .� l• � :.G . - G' • - av {{�� ,y � , y 1���'. �.• � i � i��7i P' rye'. ,��':i � �.. ... w •� �. it �� � •I � .. • ••(. ">•St-�'[Grlk.ir:;, '•i.:�:_� a ^S i''(.{ Y.sC i��• �����{{{{ .. _ `'�. tom• EJ ;.•xr. ;.Y � .. _ rJrJ1 - __ ••• -.. i `",ii., .I r r; .i',! 'r I,` 'll=•�. EIl e 0612 .. .. .. - .kyr { 1 yam' '•. rss� w Mumm IN ILI .. -�r;'i l^3 F 4 S a>s:. "re isS°Y ,y� � i��e�r•. � l: St �.� y'• .'�`M .moi i� • � _,,,_ �''a•-1 �i"� •:s:F �. - � ..�,vi�. ' . ...... .�.�.�.. , .^.�-...� 'S�IIE�:fIi' ' . .,'-r•� �`'� id -Lyv��p9Y 1r' •:Ar.rma-.,:c�� • A ':k. cA� Yw , •-�" _ wa-- , ON Jl�l0", Yw , •-�" _ 15y" 17 - .:yr�.'X�-'=r...,•^ 1�%.'�... """" L9'-wyv r]y''W'�.'•``I t! r#!' ... ',�� `d7P +�'LrP�a�¢¢ ��Y '.'a ^A�a`iA'rrti' - ..� -: � .: ;. � • � 21 Mal ' ��yy ,,may a 1 1 � ? . � .., �.' .r..u� T���r .� ��• 51 ��•� �� s�`"� .•� .•tel - � rAfr:r�a�etf' i?yY,?!y�:. i= .•� h �§� Yews. - - � fy�'i?elrS'� rt.k'-fir-�-.i � _ r nf�:� qwe u� -'. - � � ii •..��-' �S:�i=. _ , rl_=--. .:k•:r,�;:��tir;�::rii;- +;."u a � d v �}?.'.l' ?=..sCY• :+ v4.?'.r:� '.s+�"!.,s . , ,:i r¢ ..r.X.�}.a...t•r�.'•r. ! P,d:, g•,°'.h°j.,.: i a' r�..��. � ik��.. � aLYL+Fa pi�Y•f,.�'tiE-7 'Y��7 �r.'•',��,°,'.'� � �40 n� --7.:• ltd 1,�- ,�y�, .. .�� ; .�„�-�ftia:_�a•+a.: :. r• �iE:� �'iY' yn1-4,1r;1-,':.9."y,`•t!.�•ti N7 �,r .. - s _ ::7° :3u� %.k'�{+.?;.1%.�:%± r •1C ,J �rS riff �,•',p�f 2ON '� Z;7� K Kr.Ill V -A- Jun 12 2012 4:24PM Hawkins Law Offices (9491 650-1181 P.1 Lav Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949)650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 FAX COVE.. SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: NAME i FAX NUMBER Julie Folcik, City Clerk 1 (714) 754-4942 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 754-41356 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: General Date: June 12, 2012 PHONE NUMBER Documents: Comment Letter for Planning Application PA -11-03 for a Proposed Heliport, 3132 Airwav Ave. Pages; 2* COMMENTS: The infunnarion conrain-i in this facsimile message is information prorecred by attorney-client acrd/or ilia artorneylwork product privilege. if is inrended only far dw use of the Individual named above and rhe privileges are +rot Waived by virnte Of this !raving been sent byfacsimile. !j':ho person acnrarlly receiving tlmis facsimrie or any oriter reader Of rhe facsimile is not the named recipient or the empiayee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named resipietsi, any rise, disseminationk diseribution. or copying of the communication is st+•ecrly prohiimired {j yo:< hove mer sivari this sanrmunicatlon in carr, plcetsa inrmediarely r:otify its by relephone and return rhe Original r?my.vage, to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. r NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. tF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US IAgIVIEDIATELY AT (949) 650-5530, <65 Jun 12 2012 4:24PN Hawkins Law Offices (949) 650-1181 P.2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HA`X/KINS June 12, 2012 Via Facsimile Only The Honorable Eric R. Bever, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92629 Re: Application PA -11-03 for a Condition Use Permit for a Helipad/Helistop/Heliport on the roof of an existing industrial building at 3132 Airway Avenue; Finding of Exemption for Accessory Structures Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned project. As you may know, this firm represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Newport Beach, AirFair, a local group focused keeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange County area. These individuals and groups have an interest in the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. As you know, we have opposed this Project from the beginning. The Planning Commission agreed with our argurnents and recommended that you deny the captioned Project. In its August 25, 2011 Staff Report, Planning Staff recommended denial of the Project based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. At that time, the applicant requested a continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to November 1, 2011. On October 20, 2011, the applicant made a second request for continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to March 6, 2011. On February 13, 2011, the applicant wrote; "I formally request a second continuance from the Helistop Project at 3132 Airway Avenue until the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting." Now, after all of this delay and continuances, Mr. Lee, the Project Planner for the City, informs that, when June 19`s looms, the Applicant has requested that the Project be put on an "indefinite hold." As with the earlier requested continuances, this requires several comments which we have made before. First, as indicated above and as evident in the administrative record, this is the fourth continuance requested by the applicant without any statement of the reasons for such requests. Second, although the applicant prcpared a noise study, it falls far short of the studies required and the studies referenced in our earlier comments to the Planning Commission. 1 l0 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newpor� Beach, Caiifomia 92661 (949) 650-550 Fax: (949) 650-1 L8L Sq Jun 12 2012 4:24PM Hawkins Law Offices (949) 650-1181 p.3 Eric R. Bever, Mayor Members of the City Council - 2 - June 12, 2012 Third, almost a year has passed since the Planning Commission rejected this Project and noted that environmental review was required for this Project to proceed. The applicant has failed to conduct such review, and it's noise study is inadequate. Fourth, and most importantly, as recognized by the Planning Commission, this Project constitutes an expansion of John Wayne Airport and takes airport uses off the airport footprint. The City has long opposed expansion of JNV A. The City Council should deny this Project, or at least, deny the Project with leave to renew its application, begin this process again, and provide fresh documentation including full environmental reyiew, Having this application languish burdens City staff and creates a cloud for our clients. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project. As befurP, please provide us with notices, if any, for any subsequent public hearings, determinations, actions, and/or findings, Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. RCH/kw CC" City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, FFICES OF RORER . HAWKLNS n4ya y, Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Cenmr Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650- L 181 MARCH 6 2012 RE PA 11-03 PROPOSED HELIPAD. GOOD EVENING COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3130 N 3140 AIRWAY, COSTA MESA CA 92626, WHO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION. THERE ARE 6 SEPERATLEY OWNED SUBDIVIDED UNITS THAT'WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED HELICOPTER HELIPAD ABOVE THIS BUILDING. IT IS A SINGLE BUILDING WITH 6 SUB DIVIDED PROPERTY TAX TITLES. IT HAS COMMON EXTERIOR WALLS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ONE SINGLE COMMON ROOF. I SUBMITTED MY WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION TO THE COUNCIL ON NOV 1'72011. THE APPLICANT HAS NOW EXTENDED THE MATTER FROM TONIGHT TO JUNE 2012. ATTACHED ARE LETTERS FROM THE OWNERS WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION WHICH I WILL HAND TO EACH OF YOU TONIGHT. THESE LETTERS SUMMARIZE THE EXTREME HARDSHIP THIS HELIPAD WILL IMPOSE ON THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS OR IDENTIFY SAFETY THREATS TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. I REMIND THE COUNCIL THIS HELIPAD WILL SERVE ONLY THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ONE MAN AND ONE BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PARK HIS HELICOPTER IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE HIS OFFICE. CURRENTLY THIS NEED IS BEING QUITE SAFELY HANDLED 100% INSIDE AND WITHIN THE AIRPORT PERIMIETER. THE NET EFFECT WILL BE AN INCREASE IN NUMEROUS SAFETY RELATED MATTERS, BUSINESS DISRUPTION AND INSURANCE ISSUES. OF THE 6 UNITS THERE ARE 3 OPPOSED, 1 ABSTAINING AND 2 IN FAVOR. I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ABIDE BY THEIR PLANNING COMMISSION'S "NO" RECOMMENDATION RE THIS MATTER AND REJECT THE APPLICATION ONCE AND FOR ALL. DENIS LABONGE, OWNER 3136 AIRWAY, 92626 Denis LaBonge <denislabonge@gmail.com> Fwd: Commercial Property Owner opposition to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. 1 message Denis LaBonge <denislabonge@gmaii.com> Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM To: Gary.kionahan@costamesaca.gov, Jim. Righeimer c@costamesaca.gov, Edc.Bever@costamesaca.gov, Wendy. Leece@costamesaca.gov, Stephen.Messinger@costamesaca.gov Cc: plan ningcommission@ci.costa-mesa.ca. us, Damn Smith <DARRIN@davidaugustinc.com>, David <david@davidaugustinc.com>, Gene Salas <genes@vortexind.com>, TIMO@vortexind.com, James Golden <JGOLDEN@geidencapitaigrp.com>, Airway Association <kcoleman@netdevco.com> Dear Costa Mesa City Council and Planning Commission Members, Please consider the points I have raised in the email below re the matter titled # PA 11-03, due for Council hearing and public comment on Nov 1st. NOTE WELL: CORRECTION to the text below. I just now received email communication from Mr Coleman re my request for an HDA meeting, he indicates it will be scheduled as soon as possible. The other cc recipients noted above are other owners or responsible parties of this commercial complex. Thank you for your time and consideration. I know these times are very hectic for you all. Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 ------- Forwarded message --------- From: Denis LaBonge <denislabon e mail.com> Date: Tue, Oct 18. 2011 at 4:11 PM Subject: Commercial Property Owner Opposition to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. To: mlee n'7. ci.costa-rnesa.ca.us Cc: Darrin Smith <0ARRIN@davislaugustinc.corn>, David <david27a da idar.i ustinc,cam>, Gene Salas <penes@vortexind.corn>, TlNj Qeavor*exind.corn, James Golden <JrOLDI~AI oldenca ital rv.com> Dear Mr Lee and all Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, This communication is concerning a Council Hearing re PA 11-03, scheduled for Nov 01, 2011 @ 7 pm at City Council Chambers. I am one of 6 property owners of the industrial unit located at Baker and Airway 13140, 3138, 3136, 3134, 3132, 3130 Airway] . I own 3136 Airway and I am the original buyer when the complex was developed in 2003/4 and sold by Mr Coleman to me. At that time he expressed a great personal commitment to keep the development low profile, quiet and low impact. I and my tenant are opposed to this helipad. I depend on this rental income from this property as I am retired. in today's commercial real estate market, having a good tenant, who pays on time is a lucky matter. They indicate if a helipad goes in, they have no intention of remaining as a tenant. I will loose money. From a valuation point of view, local real estate agents I have spoken with indicate the value of the building will likely go down due to the risk and noise . Costa Mesa should be thoughtful re the re- assessed lower property tax value for mine and all adjacent properties if this happens to be the case. The owner of the units at 3130/3132 Airway, Mr Kevin Coleman, has applied for a City of Costa Mesa Conditional Use Permit PA 11-03 to allow a helicopter landing pad to be constructed and used above his unit at 3132 Airway. V This complex of units is governed b� "le /' vay Business Park Owners Associp}icn C r� & R's, and Mr Coleman handles all aspects of the associatio.. 6 nl ...ars [ architectural approvals, fnanL an. aping ,meetings,etc etc] I have attempted to advise and request Mr Coleman to call for an official HOA meeting to record a formal owners vote re which property owners are in favor of ... and which owners are opposed. Mr Coleman has been advised of my travel schedule. As of this hour, 3:30 prn Tuesday Oct 17th, I have received no response from Mr Coleman re my email requests to him [and cc'd to his assistant] re this matter. I am out of town now until Monday Oct 24th. It is my opinion that there are other unit owners of this development who have voiced opposition to the proposed helipad. I am cc'ing them a copy of this email to keep them aware of my opposition. It is solely up to them, of course, to communicate to you if they choose. I am solely speaking for my property at 3136 Airway. I am opposed to the Conditional Use Permit Application # PA 11-03 for the following reasons: 1. There is a huge personal safety risk, financial risk, quiet enjoyment and peace of mind risk to all tenants in common, to have a helicopter landing 6' above their common roof on a 40'x40' pad. One need only to refer to the helicopter crash in New York OCT 4th, 2011 upon takn off. People died. To help everybody visualize 40 feet ... if you are a football fan, you know 40 feet is just a bit over the 10 yd line for a 1 st down. Big chopper, small target zone. 25 feet of drop-off 2. There is a huge risk in the proposed ingress/ egress flight path that the FAA stipulates the chopper must cross! Immediately in line of this path are three SCE High Power poles and heavy duty lines at approximately 20 to 40 feet in elevation. Nearly at the same elevation as the proposed helipad. These lines directly cross the proposed FAA path. Any shift in winds, fog, western setting sun light, pilot or mechanical error and/or an errant landing path or the choppers landing skids hits these lines and ... you can fill in the blanks. 3. 1 am not a pilot, but I do know that the OC sheriff's helicopter pilot I have asked preferred to take off into the wind. The proposed FAA path for this application is nearly opposite, at 180 degrees opposite of the prevailing winds. This does not bode well for any tenant's west of 3132 helipad if the pilot elects, for safety reason, to take off in a westerly direction and that is a concern of mine. Regardless of the approved FAA path, a pilot's # 1 rule is aircraft safety, we all know that. 4. There are so many unknown dangers involved from flying debris, from established prop wash winds during take off or landing above this small multi unit complex, both from loose roof tile sand [ a natural roof material degrading process and always present ], loose debris of any nature , trash , etc etc that simply are uncontrollable risks 24/7. 5. Additionally this complex has individual air conditioning units that will be subject to prop wash winds due to dust, sand and debris blown into their intake €ans, as well as the existing 12 or more skylights which are, by design, open slotted for ventilation, thus allowing for more debris flying into the units below. Debris inside the 6 units is a normal minor occurrence during Santa Ana winds. Can you imagine what that debris will be like under 200 mph prop wash winds? Even Mr Coleman himself noticed this risk during a roof top inspection we took. 6. No mention has been made re spewing tiny airborne jet fuel droplets from the chopper's exhaust under heavy take off and landing engine load conditions.There are over 60 cars parked in the lot immediately below the proposed helipad who are tenants, customers or employers of the businesses at that site. 7. Of major concern to me is the fact my current insurance carrier indicated they will NOT RENEW my commercial insurance if a helipad is approved. So now I must seek to find a new carrier that will insure me. Additionally there is an obvious potential for increased insurance /liability risk that will be assigned to the Airway Business Park Owners Association in general for the common area, thus increasing my association dues in a matter 1 have no economic benefit or participation. in addition, there will be unknown but obvious increased maintenance fees to allow for increased wear and tear to the roof material due to prop wash. g. The applicant, Mr Coleman's tenant for 3132 Airway currently lands his chopper on the concrete ground ( big target+big pad+ wide berth] at JWA Martin Aviation, merely 150 feet from his new office at 3132 Airway. Is it asking too much of The City Council of Costa Mesa to reject this application an the grounds the risks to employers, employees, current tenants, their visiting customers, ne ,y c'tizens et at, .... are not worth the SINGULAR BENEFIT ONE PERSON ... all for the purpos r one's personal chopper outside hi- -Nffv door, 25 feet off the ground on a 40x40 pad ??? Thank you for considering these points and I urge you to REJECT application # PA 11-03. Denis LaBonge Property Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626. 949 433 5050 cell 92657 a March 5, 2012 City of Costa Mesa Dear Citv Council Members: Vortex Industries, Inc. has invested well over $1.5 million in the Vortex Training Center which occupies 3138 Airway. We have developed a state-of-the-art facility unlike anything in our industry and we take great pride in it. We hold training sessions, manager meetings, customer presentations, and business meetings continuously in this facility through out the year. A helicopter pad will be extremely disruptive to our operation. We would not have located our training center in this building had the helicopter pad been on the roof and may have also moved it out of Costa Mesa. Our training classes are a week long and we house our employees in local hotels and provide their meals from local Costa Mesa restaurants and thereby further benefiting the local economy. In addition to our training cenrer at 3138 :airway, our corporate office is located ar 3198-14 Airport loop which employs about 25 full-time people. We also operate service centers in Fullerton and Santa Ana each one employing about 25 full and part-time employees. A helicopter landing on our shared roof is a hazard that is unacceptable to us, the health and safety risks are obvious but there may be other hazards we can not foresee. We ask that you deny the CUP to operate the helicopter landing pad and allow us the continued qutet enjoyment of our training center. Sincorel Elizabeth T. Everett Owner of 3138 Airway and C.E.O. of Vortex Industries, Inc. 3198-M Airport Loop pMUI'. Costa Mesa, California 92626-3407 + F �r;, •.i v y � m 714-434-8955 Fax: 714-434-0727 • 9c) ISUCCE � License *287885 • Vortex Industries, Inc. M a g a e i n s �•q gg1` Mar 02 2012 4:32PM Hawkins Law Offices (9491 650-1181 P.1 Lav Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949)650-1181 FAX COVER SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUMBER Julie Folcik, City Clerk (714) 754-4942 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 754-4856 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: General Date: Documents: Pages: COMMENTS: March 2, 2012 Comment Letter for Agenda Item No. Public Hearing No. 1: Planning Application PA -11-03 for a Proposed Heliport, 3132 Airway Ave, 2* The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney-client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. fits in ten tied only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution. or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication irr error, please immediately notej5, us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S, Postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET, 1F YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US iV1h1EDIATELY AT (949) 650-5550. Mar 02 2012 4:32PM Hawkins Law Offices (9491 650-1181 p.2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS March 2, 2012 Via Facsimile Only The Honorable Gary Monahan, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner Citv of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Its; Agenda Item No. Public Hearing No. 1: Application PA -11-03 for a Condition Use Permit for a Helipad/Helistop/Heliport on the roof of an existing industrial building at 3132 Airway Avenue; Finding of Exemption for Accessory Structures Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned project. As you may know, this Firm represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Newport Beach, AirFair, a local group focused keeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange County area. These individuals and groups have an interest iti the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. As you know, we have opposed this Project from the beginning. The Planning Commission agreed with our arguments and recommended that you deny the captioned Project. In its August 25, 2011 Staff Report, Planning Staff recommended denial of the Project based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. At that time, the applicant requested a continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to November 1, 2011, On October 20, 2011, the applicant made a second request for continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to March 6, 2011. On February 13, 2011, the applicant wrote: "1 formally request a second continuance from the Helistop Project at 3132 Airway Avenue until the lune 19, 2012 City Council meeting." This requires several comments. First, as indicated above and as evident in the administrative record, this is the third continuance requested by the applicant without any statement of the reasons for such requests. Second, although the applicant prepared a noise study, it falls far short of the studies required and the studies referenced in our earlier comments to the Planning Commission. Third, more than eight months have passed since the Planning Commission rejected this Project and noted that environmental review was required for this Project to proceed. The applicant has failed to conduct such review, and it's noise study is inad6quate. Fourth, and most importantly, as recognized by the Planning Commission, this 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650.118 L la III ar- UC CUIC Y:.7Jr1-1 nawKins Law Urr ices tzi'tz)l ODU - I I a I P. d vary Monaihar., Mayor M_mbers of 1ze Ciy Council - 2 - March 2, ZO 12 Project constitutes an expansion of John Wayne Airport and takes airport uses off the airport footprint. The City has long opposed expansion of JWA. The City Council should deny this Project. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project. Please provide us with notices, if any, for any subsequent public hearings, determinations, actions, and/or findings. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. RCH/kw cc: City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, S OF RODERfL. HAWIGNS 34 Robert. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite Z00 Newport Beach, California 9660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1 181 15 D,AV, lD, AUGUS LIFESTYLE OUTFITTERS 6 Feb 20 t 2 All members of the Costa Mesa City Council, My business, David August, Inc has been operating in Costa Mesa since August 2003 serving clients of Orange County, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego and several major locations in the united states. In addition to the 3,000 clients we serve, I have 18 employees that work in the offices to which I am charged with providing a safe work place. With the potential addition of a helipad on the premises I am concerned about the impact on safety, the quality of the business environment, the work environment and potential impact on property value this may cause. The addition of the helipad presents potential safety problems for our employees and our clients through possible accidents as well as debris. With this risk of accidents, any disruption would impair our business through loss of client product and in retail business interruption. In the worst case scenario that a terrible accident may occur, our business would be irreparably harmed by the interruption caused. This is a risk I am not willing to take and it was sever is consideration when I decided to place my operation at this address. More immediately, I also have concerns about what the operation of the helipad will have on the current working environment and the selling environment for my business, its employees and our clients through noise, traffic, and debris. Our clients don't expect to have low flying aircraft landing on the building as they visit our showroom. Lastly, it is unknown what impact the addition of a helipad will have on the value of the property that I own. For these reasons, I am opposed to adding the helipad operation to the 3140 Airway property Sill crely, a id Heil Owner ,3140 Airway Owner, David August Inc HAND -TAILORED WARDROBES FOR THE SUPERSTARS OF BUSINESS, SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT 3140 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626 • Tel: (7 14) 545 -SUIT (7848) Fox: (714) 545-7880 t -mail: InfokCVDovidAugustlnc.com • Website: DavidAugustlnc.com 14efAA r 4. v (' Pr ! f .. 4(, Te< Page 1 of 3 LEE, MEL From: LEE, MEL Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:14 PM To: FOLCIK, JULIE; CORDON, CHRISTINE; NGUYEN, KHANH; FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: FW: Commercial Property Owner Oppostion to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. From: Denis LaBonge [mailto:denislabonge@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20114:12 PM To: LEE, MEL Cc: Darrin Smith; David; Gene Salas; TIMO@vortexind.com; James Golden Subject: Commercial Property Owner Oppostion to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. Dear Mr Lee and all Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, This communication is concerning a Council Hearing re PA 11-03, scheduled for Nov 01, 2011 @ 7 pm at City Council Chambers. I am one of 6 property owners of the industrial unit located at Baker and Airway [ 3140, 3138, 3 13 6, 3 13 4, 3132, 3 13 0 Airway] . I own 3136 Airway and I am the original buyer when the complex was developed in 2003/4 and sold by Mr Coleman to me. At that time he expressed a great personal commitment to keep the development low profile, quiet and low impact. I and my tenant are opposed to this helipad. I depend on this rental income from this property as I am retired. In today's commercial real estate market, having a good tenant, who pays on time is a lucky matter. They indicate if a helipad goes in, they have no intention of remaining as a tenant. I will loose money. From a valuation point of view, local real estate agents I have spoken with indicate the value of the building will likely go down due to the risk and noise. Costa Mesa should be thoughtful re the re- assessed lower property tax value for mine and all adjacent properties if this happens to be the case. The owner of the units at 3130/3132 Airway, Mr Kevin Coleman, has applied for a City of Costa Mesa Conditional Use Permit PA 11-03 to allow a helicopter landing pad to be constructed and used above his unit at 3132 Airway. This complex of units is governed by the Airway Business Park Owners Association C,C & R's, and Mr Coleman handles all aspects of the association's matters [ architectural approvals, finance, landscaping ,meetings,ete etc] I have attempted to advise and request Mr Coleman to call for an official HOA meeting to record a formal owners vote re which property owners are in favor of ... and which owners are opposed. Mr Coleman has been advised of my travel schedule. As of this hour, 3:30 pm Tuesday Oct 17th, I have received no response from Mr Coleman re my email requests to him [and cc'd to his assistant] re this matter. I am out of town now until Monday Oct 24th. q1 10/18/2011 Page 2 of 3 It is my opinion that there are other unit owners of this development who have voiced opposition to the proposed helipad. I am cc'ing them a copy of this email to keep them aware of my opposition. It is solely up to them, of course, to communicate to you if they choose. I am solely speaking for my property at 3136 Airway. I am opposed to the Conditional Use Permit Application # PA 11-03 for the following reasons: 1. There is a huge personal safety risk, financial risk, quiet enjoyment and peace of mind risk to all tenants in common, to have a helicopter landing 6' above their common roof on a 40'x40' pad. One need only to refer to the helicopter crash in New York OCT 4th, 2011 upon take off. People died. To help everybody visualize 40 feet ... if you are a football fan, you know 40 feet is just a bit over the 10 yd line for a 1 st down. Big chopper, small target zone. 25 drop-off 2. There is a huge risk in the proposed ingress/ egress flight path that the FAA stipulates the chopper must cross! Immediately in line of this path are three SCE High Power poles and heavy duty lines at approximately 20 to 40 feet in elevation. Nearly at the same elevation as the proposed helipad. These lines directly cross the proposed FAA path. Any shift in winds, fog, western setting sun light, pilot or mechanical error and/or an errant landing path or the choppers landing skids hits these lines and ... you can fill in the blanks. 3. I am not a pilot, but I do know that the OC sheriffs helicopter pilot I have asked preferred to take off into the wind. The proposed FAA path for this application is nearly opposite, at 180 degrees opposite of the prevailing winds. This does not bode well for any tenant's west of 3132 helipad if the pilot elects, for safety reason, to take off in a westerly direction and that is a concern of mine. Regardless of the approved FAA path, a pilot's # 1 rule is aircraft safety, we all know that. 4. There are so many unknown dangers involved from flying debris, from established prop wash winds during take off or landing above this small multi unit complex, both from loose roof tile sand [ a natural roof material degrading process and always present ], loose debris of any nature , trash , etc etc that simply are uncontrollable risks 24/7. 5. Additionally this complex has individual air conditioning units that will be.subject to prop wash winds due to dust, sand and debris blown into their intake fans, as well as the existing 12 or more skylights which are, by design, open slotted for ventilation, thus allowing for more debris flying into the units below. Debris inside the 6 units is a normal minor occurrence during Santa Ana winds. Can you imagine what that debris will be like under 200 mph prop wash winds? Even Mr Coleman himself noticed this risk during a roof top inspection we took. 6. No mention has been made re spewing tiny airborne jet fuel droplets from the chopper's exhaust under heavy take off and landing engine load conditions. There are over 60 cars parked in the lot immediately below the proposed helipad who are tenants, customers or employers of the businesses at that site. 7. Of major concern to me is the fact my current insurance carrier indicated they will NOT RENEW my commercial insurance if a helipad is approved. So now I must seek to find a new carrier that will insure me. Additionally there is an obvious potential for increased insurance /liability risk that will be assigned to the Airway Business Park Owners Association in general for the common area, thus increasing my association dues in a matter I have no economic benefit or participation. In addition, there will be 10/18/2011 Page 3 of 3 unknown but obvious increased maintenance fees to allow for increased wear and tear to the roof material due to prop wash. 8. The applicant, Mr Coleman's tenant for 3132 Airway currently lands his chopper on the concrete ground [ big target+big pad+ wide berth] at JWA Martin Aviation, merely 150 feet from his new office at 3132 Airway. Is it asking too much of The City Council of Costa Mesa to reject this application on the grounds the risks to employers, employees, current tenants, their visiting customers, nearby citizens et al, .... are not worth the SINGULAR BENEFIT ONE PERSON ... all for the purpose to park one's personal chopper outside his office door, 25 feet off the ground on a 40x40 pad ??? CD Thank you for considering these points and I urge you to REJECT application # PA 11-03. Denis LaBonge Property Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626. 949 433 5050 cell 92657 M 10/18/2011 py7,rlJ/lGl�rl% •Jmrr tec . i�iic •Jfkr. rrl ruin %2/ 2 August 23, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: App #PA -11-03 Honor Council Members: I write this letter in opposition to your approving the subject application. I do not believe approving this application request is in the best interests of the citizens of Costa Mesa. While the proposed helipad will be located atop a building next to the airport runways, it nevertheless may be construed as a way to enlarge the airport footprint. In addition, any helicopters using the helipad will be able to access it by flying over residential areas of Costa Mesa. There is enough air and noise pollution emanating from John Wayne Airport as it is; we do not need any more. I believe there are also safety concerns. We don't need any addition risks (remember the helicopter crash at New York's Pan Am building?) along with what is already present with planes from John Wayne taking off/landing over residential areas. Another thing to consider — just how many helicopter flights are planned — and how many more if this venture is successful. Approve this application and I am certain Legacy will return with their ambitious plans which would also further enlarge the airport footprint. The previous Council wisely turned Legacy down. Why risk having the camel put his nose under the tent by approving the subject application. This is not far-fetched. The new terminal at John Wayne will have everything needed for easy international travel — customs, immigration, etc. Obviously the airport planners are anticipating expanded ser✓ice Canada — and who knows where else. How convenient to have a helipad for passengers wanting to avoid the mess that is LAIC- If successful, there will be more applications for helipads. You have to think long term here. Again, I urge the Council to reject this application — regardless of what governmental agencies have given it their blessings. The citizens of Costa Mesa must come first. Sincerely, Dolores Storme SOU From: Soong Kim [mailto:skim@olenproperties.com] Sent: Monday, August 08, 20113:31 PM To: LEE, MEL; PLANNING COMMISSION Cc: Dale Lyon Subject: App. No. PA-11-03 Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, Good evening. I represent the ownership of the property at 3100 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, a neighboring building to the subject property at 3132 Airway Avenue. I would like to address the concern(s) involving this project. In search of an answer to my question — the path of ingress and egress to the proposed helipad — I have spoken with Margie Drilling, Airport Planner from FAA. According to her, the applicant has not yet met the conditions of approval posed by FAA, and one condition apparently involves the ingress and egress path. She recommended that I contact Doug Blaul at Air Control Tower agency for more information related to the path. He was not available today, however, so 1 could not clarify my concern. As an owner of the neighboring property, we object to the proposed project if its path to and from the helipad is over our or any of the neighboring buildings. We ask that we be well informed of the approvals that the applicant has to acquire prior to the project's final approval. Thank you. Soong Kim Design/ Project Manager OLEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Seven Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)719-7222 - Direct (949)719-7274 - Fax www. olenproperties. com lot LAw OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS August S, 2011 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery The Honorable Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa, Planning Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 M:I S FA - 11-03 Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item No. Vl 5: A lieati-an PA -LI -03 for a Condition Use Permit for a Heli adlHelisto 1 eli art aaD the r of of an existin- industrial build ing at 31.32 Airway Avenue• Findina of Exemrition For Accessory Structures Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned project. As you may know, this firm represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Newport Beach, AirFair, a local group focused keeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange. County area_ These individuals and groups have an interest in the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. We have reviewed the original staff report as well as the August 8, 2011 supplemental staff reports on the captioned project and its recommended finding of exemption. Both reports are seriously in error and we object to Staffs recommendation ofapproval of the CUP and of the finding of exemption. First, the original staff report erroneously characterizes the Project as a helistop. The Airport Land Use Environs Plan. for Heliports ("Heliport AELUP") does not distinguish between a helistoa and a heliport; they are governed by the same rules and requirements. Heliport AELUP, page 4. I. Surnmiary of OWections We object to the Project and the Finding of Exemption for the following reasons: A. The Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport in violation of the City of Costa Mesa' commitment to contain the airport in the September 3, 2008 Memorandum of Understanding on John Wayne Airport and its commitment to the Corridor Cities Agreement. 110 Newport Center Drive, Sulre 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 htx: 0149) 650.1 181 16r� Colin McCarthy, Chair -Meinbers of the Planning Commission l - August 8, 2011 B. The Project is not exempt as an accessory structure under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq, ("CEQA"), the Project will have potentially significant environmental impacts including noise, land use, and other impacts, and the City has failed to analyze such impacts as required by CEQA. C. The Project is the second of a series of airport related projects in the City; the City cannot provide a piecemeal review and approval of such project without violating CEQA; CEQA requires a programmatic analysis of any efforts by the City to convert the area east of Red Hill Ave. to airport uses. II. The Heliport is an Ex onsion of the Footprint of John Wayne Air art. The City has entered into several agreements to contain the expansion of John Wayne Airport. In 2000, the City entered into the Corridor Cities Agreement which include virtually all of the cities in Orange County along the flight path of John Wayne Airport. Among other things, this Agreement commits all signatories including the City to make every effort to keep John Wayne Airport at its current size and footprint. In addition, on September 30, 2008, the City of Newport Beach and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding John Wayne Airport which had as one of its goals keeping the footprint of John Wayne Airport at its 2008 size. Finally, on .August 5, 2011, ylayor Henn transmitted a letter to you and Mayor Monahan urging you to reject the Project because among other things it would violate these commitments. The Project would ,folate all of this. Currently, the applicant use a helipad on the footprint of John Wayne Airport at Martin Aviation- The Project proposes to move this operation off the footprint of John Wayne Airport and onto private property. This expands the footprint in two ways: (l) it creates new air uses off the John Wayne Airport footprint; and (2) it frees up capacity on John Wayne Airport for other airport uses including storage of planes overnight. The August $, 2011 supplemental staff report erroneously concludes that the Project will not expand the existing footprint of John Wayne Airport. Citing Ms. Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer for the Airport Land Use Commission, the report states that the Project is not an expansion because the land is privately owned. It assumes that the footprint is a physical limitation. There are so many problems with this conclusion. First, is City staff seriously maintaining that County personnel can interpret the agreements and commitments of the City and of the City of Newport Beach regarding John Wayne Airport? Second, although the report may be correct as far as it goes, it stops far short of the spirit and intent of the agreements between the cities: transferring air uses off the airport footprint onto 110 Newpuri CCnler Drive, Suite 200 N'mpori lleaclt. California 92660 (944) 650.5550 l=ax: (9491 650-118 L 10? Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of the Planning Commission - 3 - Augusr 8, 2011 a private parcel expands that footprint and uses regardless of the ownership of the parcel. The footprint applies both the physical boundaries as well as the uses within those boundaries. Because the Project transfers air uses off John Wayne Airport, it expands the boundaries of air uses. Third, the Project will free up capacity and land on the airport for additional air uses. This increase in capacity as well as the new capacity off John Wayne Airport is a further example of the Project's expansion of the airport footprint. The Commission must follow the commitments of the City, comply with its agreements and reject this application. III. The Proiect is Nut Exempt under CES. Citing CEQA Guidelines section 15311, the Staff Report maintains that the Project—construction of a heliport— is exempt under CEQA as an accessory structure. This is wildly inaccurate and simply wrong. Section 1531 1 provides: "Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On -premise signs; (b) Small parking lots; ( c) Placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums; or other facilities designed for public use." None of the examples apply. Moreover, the heliport is not an accessory structure in that it is not like a parking space; it is a parking space for a helicopter which generates substantial noise and other impacts. The Municipal Code also does not support this conclusion. For instance, Municipal Code section 13-6 includes the following definitions: "Accessory building. A building or part of a building which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building or use on the same lot." 1 l0 Newport Cenrer Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 101 Colin McCarthy. Chair Members of the Planning Commissian - 4 • Augusr 8, 20 1 1 "Accessory use. A use incidental and subordinate to, and devoted exclusively to the main use of the land or building thereon." Neither apply: the heliport is a unique Project; it requires federal, state and county approvals; it is not simply ancillary to the office use. Indeed, it is unique to the office use in Costa Mesa. Moreover, ultimately the City of Costa Mesa will not be able to condition the Project fully, Under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521, et seq., the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has sole jurisdiction to control access to airspace including hours of operation. Although the new conditions attempt to control the hours of the Project, ultimately the FAA will decide this and other land use issues. Indeed, as discussed below, the exemption is improper, because a fair argument exists that the Project may create potentially significant impacts on the environment. Helicopters in a location off the airport create significant environmental impacts for various reasons. First, helicopters are noisy. A helicopter on takeoff generates sound of 105 dB Single -Event Noise Exposure Level ("SENEL"). That is fifty (50%) percent louder than a jack hammer. Moreover, it is 2dB louder than F-18 on takeoff_ This is not to say that any noise generated by the Project could not be mitigated; this is only to say that such impacts require analysis. Federal guidance concerning the evaluation of aircraft noise including helicopters is contained in 14 C.F.R. Part 150, "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning", December 1984; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1E, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures", June 2004; FAA Order 5050.413, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions", April 2006; and, FAA's "Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions", October 2007. All of these direct that any airport activities require environmental review. As you know, in its June 21, 201 1 letter concerning the captioned matter, the Federal Aviation Administration advised that: "This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with the National Environmental Policy.Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) as amended." Attachment 6, page 26 of the Staff Report, In order to comply with such requirements, the City must conduct its own environmental review under CEQA. The FAA in its airspace study together with its administrative orders and rulings direct as much. Indeed, the University of California, San Francisco conducted extensive environmental review for its proposed hospital expansion and helipad for medical helicopters. This review included the 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 — Hospital Replacement EIR ("2005 EIR"), the 2008 Environmental Impact Report for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay expansion project ("2008 Expansion EIR"), and the 2009 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for UCSF 110 Newport Center Drive, Sttite ?00 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 ['ax: (949) 650-1 181 -- --- —,, ak-J=5 i_-IYZIl UOU-IItil p.6 Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of the Planning Couunission •5- AL19W 8, 2011 Medical Center at Mission Bay helicopter operations near residential sites ("2009 Missioa Bay Helicopter SEIR"). The Regents of the University of California published the 2009 Mission Bay Helicopter SEIR in order to develop a noise mitigation program for their helipad project which was near residential uses in San Francisco, Although the Project is not near residential uses, the Mariners Christian School which is about 900 feet away from the Project has over 630 students, which are sensitive receptors plus over 90 teachers, aides and administrators. Clearly, these 630 sensitive rect,ptors and their facility are entitled to the protections of the County's Heliport Airport Environs Land Use Plan and CEQA, Indeed, EIR 508 for the John Wayne Airport Expansion in the 1980's long ago recognized that noise impacts on school children can be severe and long term. Further, the noise discussions in the UCSF Project 2009 Expansion ETR and in the 2009 Mission Bay Helicopter SEIR provide additional guidance regarding the importance of and the need for full environmental review of the Project by the City, Moreover, helicopters create vibration which can rattle windows in the office buildings near the Project site, Such vibration itself is a potentially significant impact which requires analysis and perhaps mitigation. Further, the case law does not support StafFs recommendation or the proposed finding for a Class i 1 exemption, In Simons v. Ci of Los AAngeles (1977) 72 Cal'. App. 3d 924, the City found thar corkstructiion of a firearms training simulator building adjacent to the police firing range was exempt under Class 11 as an accessory structure. The Court rejected petitioner's challenge that the range required preparation of an environmental impact report. The Court noted that the administrative record indicated that: " ... no noticeable noise should emanate from the facility. ... [para. ] The proposed construction will not displace any automobile parking area, will apparently not involve increased attendance at the training academy, ..." Id. at 938 (Emphasis supplied). Based upon the lack of any impacts, the Court ruled that the firing range construction was exempt: "The addition of the firearms training simulator building adjacent to the pistol range is clearly within exempt class 11 (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 151 l 1) as a minor structure accessory to existing institutional facilities." Id. at 938-39. Here, however, the Project is not accessory to an existing institutional facility, the heliport is a radically new use on the site which requires federal, state and county approvals, 110 Newporr Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport ©each, California 9?660 (949) 650.5550 H:uc (949) 650.1 18 l I.,�, I UJU-1101 P. Colin McCardly, Chair Members of the Planning Connuiseion . 6 . Augur 8, 201 I More importantly, a substantial amount of noise will emanate from the facility with the arrival and departure of the noisy helicopters. The Project is not exempt and not an accessory use. The City cannot approve this Project without conducting the appropriate en.virorunental review_ Nioreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Class I 1 Exemption may apply, CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 entitled "Exceptions" would except the Project from any exemption. Section 15300.2 provides in pertinent part that the City cannot use exemptions in the following situations: "(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 1 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative impact. All ex:.mptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. ( c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Guidelines section 15300.2 contains other exceptions not applicable here.) in Lewis v. Seventeenth District Aariecrltural Association (1955) 165 Caf. App,3d 823, the respondent Nevada County approved a contract extension for the continued use of a race track on county fairgrounds for auto racing. The county approved the contract based upon its findings that t<he project was exempt under the Class 23 exemption for normal operations of existi:ag facilities for public gatherings. Because of the potential for significant noise traPacts on the adjacent neighboring residents, the Court of Apply held that the exemption did not apply and cited Guidelines section 15300.2 exception applied. This Project is similar and each of these exceptions apply; they remove the Project from any claim for an exemption. First, the Project's location is unique and there is a "reasonable possibility" that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to usual circumstances. The Project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport. It is a sensitive area because. it requires federal, state and local approvals; it requires analysis of safety issues; it expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport; it is within 1,1700 feet of Mariners Christian school. 1 l0 Newport Cenrer Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California K660 (949) 650-5550 Fix: (949) 6 50.1 18 L )U1 Colin McCarrhy. Chair Members of rhe Planning Commission 7 - August 8, 201 i Second, as discussed below, the Project is the second in a series of airport related projects on the west side of John Wayne Airport. City officials appear to seek such airport related projects. Third, there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have potentially significant impacts on the environment: aesthetic impacts; land use impacts; impacts on hazards; noise and vibration impacts; and cumulative impacts, all of which require analysis and mitigation. fn addition, because the Project will expand the footprint of John Wayne Airport and place helicopters within 1,000 feet ofMariners Christian school, it has the potential to create significant land use impacts: the Project will bring airport related uses and impacts closer to sensitive receptors, office and industrial uses. Further, the Project may have aesthetic impacts from the arrival and departure of helicopters in an area with schools and office parks. All of this requires full envirorn-nental analysis. The August 8, 2011 supplemental staff report relies extensively on the Airport Land Use Commission's ("ALUC") finding and recornmendation regarding the consistency of the Project with the Heliport AELUP and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. ALUC did no environmental review and did not conduct a noise study. Ultimately, as indicated above, neither the FAA nor ALUC conducts the environmental review for the Cky. That function falls squarely on the shoulders of the Commission and Council, and the environmental review has not been conducted. I1'. The Pro 4ect A p ieavi to be a Part of a Larger Airi2ort Expansion Pro iect. As indicated above, the Project is the second in a series of projects which will expand John 'Wayne Airport. In spring 2010, the: City considered a project for a corporate aircraft hangarloffice facility on the west side of John Wayne Airport at 2970 Airway Avenue and 3180 Airway Avenue owned by the County of Orange, the owner and operator of John Wayne Airport known as the Legacy Air Center_ Although the project proponent withdrew its application, the City's• representative on the Airport Land Use Commission indicated that he and many others at the City supported the project. This means that the City will approve more airport related projects on the west side of John Wayne Airport. In order to comply with CEQA, the City roust conduct a programmatic environmental review for this airport expansion project. We welcome the opportunity to review and comment on this project. However, the City cannot segment this project into small pieces. Since its inception, CEQA has forbid "piecemeal" review of the significant environmental impacts of a project. Laurel Hei rhts Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391, in. 2. This prof- bition stems in part from CEQA itself Public Resources Code section 21002.1(d) requires that an environmental document "consider[] the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in [the] project." Courts have recognized that: L M Newrpmr Center llriv_, Sulu 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 6.50-5550 Fax: (949) 650-118 1 UT T I UeS ldgtll bbu-1181 P. 9 Colin McCarthy, Chair Memher. of the Planning Commission B • August 8, 201 l "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal ... and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Sacramento Old City Assn. v. CityCouncil (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1023 [280 Cal.Rptr. 478], original italics; Stanislaus Natural Hedta e Pro•ect v. County 0FStanislaus (1996) 48 Cal,AppAth 182, 201, Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 provides that: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environments] effect, thz lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168 ...." Under the Guidelines, the term "project" is defined as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably indirect physical change -in the environment ...." Id. at CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a). At the other end of the spectrum, long-range planning proposals are exempt from EIR requirements: "A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR ...." CEQA Guidelines section 15262. As indicated above, the Project is the second in a series of airport related projects. The City cannot comply with CEQA, by segmenting the environmental analysis and approve individual airport expansion projects with little or no environmental review and analysis. To the extent that the City proposes such a wholesale conversion of the west side of John Wayne Airport to airport uses, he City must analyze the full programmatic environmental review and analysis for such an airport expansion project. V. Conclusion The Commission cannot make the findings necessary to recommend the Project for approval to the Council. The Commission should reject the Project for the following reasons: The Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport in violation of a host of commitments by the City; 110 Newport Center Drive, SUILe 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 6 50-5 5 i0 Fax: (949) 650- l 181 �v� IoW urriu&5 1y45J 650-1181 (x.10 Colin McCarrhy, Chair Members of rhe Planning Commission 9 - Augusr 8, 2011 2. The Project is not exempt under CEQA and the City must conduct environmental review, 3. The Project appears to be the second in a series of airport expansion projects in the City; the City must conduct programmatic environmental review for this conversion. The City cannot do this in a piecemeal manner. Public Resources Code section 15021 requires that the City has a duty to minimize environmental damage and balance competing public objectives and that it is required to give major consideration to preventing such damage. The Project has the potential to create such damage and the City must conduct a thorough and adequate review of such impacts, Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project, We look forward to participating the in the public hearing process, receiving responses to these and other comments, and commenting on those responses at the appropriate public hearings. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not liesitate to contact us. RCH1kw cc: City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, FICES OF ROIBI A WKiNS 4 B . Robert C. Hawkins 110 Ncwporr Cenrcr Drive, SLI! re 200 Newport Beadi, Califoniia 92660 (949) 650-5 5 50 1 Ax: (949) 650.1 l8 t LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS July 21, 2011 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery Gerald Bresnahan, Chairman Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County John Wayne Airport Eddie Martin Administration Building Airport Commission Hearing Room 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: A enda Item No. 1: Reg gest for Consideration of Leadine Ec1 a Aviation Services IIe: into R at 31:32 Airway Avenue. Costr3, Mesa, California Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County: This firm represents residents and groups in Newport Beach who are interested in the development of John Wayne Airport. Although 1 have served on the board of the Airport Working Group and now serve on the board of AirFair, these comments do not represent their views but only the views of my clients. Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc. whose headquarters are 19361 Campus Dr., Suite 256 Santa Ana, California 92707 in the Martin facility and adjacent to John Wayne Airport, seeks approval of a helistop at 3132 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626 and across Ike Jones Drive f Tom the Lyon Air Museum. (For the purposes of the ALUC analysis, a helistop requires the same analysis as a heliport.) Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21661.5, this application requires a determination by this Commission that this Project for a helistop across Airway from John Wayne Airport is consistent with the Airport Environs lend Use Plan for John Wayne Airport ("JWA AELUP") anti the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports ("Heliport AELUP"). For several reasons, it is not consistent with either plan. First and by way of introduction, Public Utilities Code section 2I661,5 is interesting from several perspectives. First, it is entitled: "Approval of Plan for Construction of New Airport; Delegation of Responsibility;" that is, the Project is for the construction of a new airport or in this case a new heliport. Second, section 21661.5(b) authorizes the County to delegate to this Commission the authority for" ... the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas . . 71 110 Nt ewporr Center Drive, Suirc 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Gerald 11r1•5nM1111, Chair Member; of the A1.UC ? • July ? 1, 3011 an-d� fheeuIy`21 ZOT7`§faff KePort recognizes ftiat noise is a signs scan concern regarding this application. However, no noise study has been performed for this project. The Heliport AELUP states that: "The Commission shall rely on the acoustical study, prepared for each proposed heliport as necessary, to evaluate the potential noise impact area associated with the facility. The Commission may, on a case by case basis, recommend to the responsible local agency that the heliport's use be specifically controlled as a means of mitigating noise impacts. Noise Levels of 60 dB CNEL are considered to have potential noise impact on surrounding sensitive land uses." Heliport AELUP, Section 2.22. Although this application is for a helistop, the same standards apply. See Heliport AELUP, page 4. Indeed, the noise generated will be the same, and Staff is concerned about the noise generated from this Project. The Staff Report notes that the Project is within the Noise Impact Zone 1 with greater than 65 CNEL from the current operations of John Wayne Airport. The Airport generates substantial noise. Nonetheless the Project in proximity to schools and offices may increase that level unacceptably and move the noise contour further into Costa Mesa. In addition, the Project will likely create increases in the significant single event noise exposure levels ("SENEL") in the vicinity. The Commission should require a noise study; the Heliport AELUP provides no exceptions Moreover, placing the Project within the Noise Impact Zone 1 with greater than 65 CNEL does not free the Project from noise analysis. The noise study should also consider and analyze the impact of Single Event Noise Exposure Levels to determine the consistency of the Project with the Heliport AELUP and the AELUP. The Noise Impact Zone 1 is simply noise levels for the Community Noise Equivalent Level which simply averages the noise levels for a 24 hour period. Further, earlier environmental documents may have analyzed the expansion of the Airport but none has analyzed the Project features which will expand the noise contour further into Costa Mesa. At the very least, the Commission should require preparation of an acoustical study before considering this application. Indeed, such a study will be necessary to conduct the environmental analysis for the Project, Third, the Staff Report discusses the surrounding land uses: "The project is located in an area zoned Multi Purpose (MP) Industrial Park and is surrounded by John Wayne Airport to the north and east, light industrial/office/research uses to the south, and light industriallofficelresearch uses and MarinersChristianSchool to the westaMariners Christian School is about 900 feet west of the project site but not beneath proposed flight paths." Staff Report, page 1. Section 3.2.1 of the Heliport AELUP states: A proposed heliport site may be found inconsistent with the AELUP if the site is: (1) Near places where people may be affected adversely by aircraft noise, (2) Near concentrations of people, 110 Newport Center Drive, Suire 200 Newport Bunk, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650-118 t 1)a Cierild Bresnahan, Chair Members of die ALIJC 3 - Jule'_ 1, 2011 -.--Near struc .uresw o" se l�eighf in[erieres with preferred'take-off ana approacli corridors. Clearly, the Project is "near places where people may be affected adversely by aircraft noise" and "near concentrations of people:" the Mariners Christian School which is about 900 feet away from the Project has over 630 students, which are sensitive receptors plus over 90 teachers, aides and administrators. Clearly, these 530 sensitive receptors and their facility are entitled to the protections of the Heliport AELUP, Indeed, EIR 508 long ago recognized that noise impacts on school children can be severe and long term. Further, Section 3.2.1 provides if any application is found inconsistent with these General Policies, the application is inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP. As indicated above, the application is inconsistent with the General Policies and therefore inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP. Moreover, Public Utilities Code section 21662.5 provides: "Notwithstanding Section 21006 or Section 21661 or any other provision of law to the contrary, no helicopter may land or depart in any area within 1,000 feet, measured by air line, of the boundary of any public or private school maintaining kindergarten classes or any classes in grades l through 12, without approval of the department or by a public safety agency designated by the department, unless the landing or departure takes place at a permitted permanent heliport, or is a designated emergency medical service landing site." Although the Staff Report indicates that the Department has reviewed the plans and conditionally approved them subject to environmental review and local agency approvals. However, the Staff Report does not state that the Department has reviewed the Project for safety issues as required by Section 21662.5. As indicated above, the Mariners Christian is within 1,000 feet of the Project and requires the Department's safety analysis. That has not happened, Fourth, the hours of operation of the Project will differ from the hours of operation of John Wayne Airport. The Project proposes to operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily. This conflicts with the John Wayne Airport curfew set for Sunday mornings at 8:00 a,m. ThVroject will generate noise which has not been studied without the background noise of the Airport during this quiet Sunday morning. Clearly, the Commission should require a noise study for this Project. Fifth, if the Commission finds the Project inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP, then it is inconsistent with the AELUP. See AELUP, Section 2,1.5. See also AELUP, Section 3.2.1 (similar policies to the Heliport AELUP Section 3,2.1.) Sixth and most importantly, this Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport. As indicated above, Public Utilities Code section 21161.5 addresses location of new airports and heliports. This Project is simply the first of what will surely be more applications to expand the Airport into the west side of the Airport and the east side of Costa Mesa, It is the camel's noise, er, nose under the 110 Newuort Cenrer Drive, Swire 200 Newporr Beach, Cali(OTl11il 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 113 Oer,dii I n,.nahan, Chaa Mvwkvr.;ofdwAiI_I` -4- Jid _'1,_01I A1�mt�s_Cent--'h+�cgacy ' rjtt Site�iilSlerns a:id w��lrew its ap�3lrc ion affer a substantial controversy arose over than Project. This Project will suffer the same fate. Moreover, the Project proposes to allow the applicant to enter air space without appropriate: security protections. The Project is a "through the fence" Project. Passengers can enter the Project facility, board the helicopter, enter regulated air space and then land at the Airport or other airports, all without the benefit of any security clearances or reviews. For all of these reasons, we urge you to reject the Project and find it inconsistent with the AELUP and the Heliport AELUP, At the very least, the Commission should require preparation of a noise study for the Project. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF ROBE C. HAIWKINS 4ly Wer awkins _ RCH'kw -4 40 110 Newport Cenrer Drive, Suire 200 Newporr Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (9�9) 650.1181 III ATTACHMENT 6I� C 0 R T LA N 0 M O R G A N ARCHITECT 711 M. FIELDER RD. ARL•HGTa H. TE 79812 PH: (817) 635-5696 4A%; [81'1} 535-5999 IKE JONES ROAD - - - 0- AREA OF ccDD a xxO SEED FLOOR r 3 m OFFICE ADDITION .. — — — — — — - — — 41W I `^. �OSTIN6 ADA ,L O5 __---EXISTING AC PAVING --PARKINS oclsrlNG R ` ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL , - _ ,, .� 1 SITE PLAN SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EXISTING SITE PLAN co LU W CwIRAGC V.I W ,, z cr.� __... AREA OF - INnmice TB,W.NT . EX15TB6G slpG WROVEti8JTS j _._..... Srcat am.7wG ' _ --- — . ZIKSTM O I f�EXISTING AC PAVING O W i I W WARW4LSe - _ .- ,EXISTINGS AC PAVING -----i" O I O STINGSTRIPING Q 466' REW014 DATE BLDG DEPT 14 PEB II FIRST SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY EXISTING SITE PLAN co LU W V.I W ,, ?z a� J1'� j F �V Q REW014 DATE BLDG DEPT 14 PEB II FIRST SUBMITTAL tj ,gg pp, 10127 ` SIM PLM AO2 AREA CP NW TWO STORY STAR ADOP A@ETRATIObj jT xe — - — - www r/�AmV ■ 1/ /� rs ° FA FA �f IN .� A D n1 - 4 m -4- J e I ROOF PLAN mm 0 I❑ ROLLED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING. PAC -CLAD PETERSEN ALLM@AA1R-nGWTiOC T H, % 18' O.C. PRE-FINSED LAS SELECTED) CIRVING OF ROOFING MATERIAL IN FIND. ❑2 LM OF WALL B9AIAL 3❑ DEIN ROOF :.RICKET SEE e ❑4 E%ISTING ROOF SCIPPS. OVERFLOW AND DOVfSPOL T- ❑5 SECOND FLOOR OFFICE FRAMING SHALL BE OPEN TO EXISTING ROOF DECK BELOW. ❑6 EOSTNG SALT LP ROOFNG AND CAP SWEET. INSPECT, PATCH AND REPAIR ANY DEFICIENCIES. �7 LINE OF EILISTNG CONCIZEIE WALL BROW. a NEW HVAC INTT. SEE MEWANICPL PETS BACK EXI5f6VB 9JLT LP ROOFING TO ACCESS SCISTNG ROOF FRAMNG LAB REOLl16®1 PROVIDE NEW PATC 14 AND REPAIR OF EYJSTING CLASS 'A' BUILT LF ROOFNG WITH CAP SWEET. •DTE ND CLIA NGIES TO EXISTNG ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL OCCLR. ALL MGSTING ROOF SLOPES. SCL P AND DOWNSPOUTS S ALL REMAIN. C a R TL A x o M0 R s A 9 ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARUHMN, TX 76012 PHI (1117) 6511-5696 Uk [6i7) e3s-s60 9 Vi Oil '$ ® S c LU JII C�9 j ct W W UNM IWAMM &AM TA.L �O ^ ca - -- ---- --- - REVISIONS SLOG DEPT FIRST SL6MITTAL -4- J e I ROOF PLAN mm 0 I❑ ROLLED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING. PAC -CLAD PETERSEN ALLM@AA1R-nGWTiOC T H, % 18' O.C. PRE-FINSED LAS SELECTED) CIRVING OF ROOFING MATERIAL IN FIND. ❑2 LM OF WALL B9AIAL 3❑ DEIN ROOF :.RICKET SEE e ❑4 E%ISTING ROOF SCIPPS. OVERFLOW AND DOVfSPOL T- ❑5 SECOND FLOOR OFFICE FRAMING SHALL BE OPEN TO EXISTING ROOF DECK BELOW. ❑6 EOSTNG SALT LP ROOFNG AND CAP SWEET. INSPECT, PATCH AND REPAIR ANY DEFICIENCIES. �7 LINE OF EILISTNG CONCIZEIE WALL BROW. a NEW HVAC INTT. SEE MEWANICPL PETS BACK EXI5f6VB 9JLT LP ROOFING TO ACCESS SCISTNG ROOF FRAMNG LAB REOLl16®1 PROVIDE NEW PATC 14 AND REPAIR OF EYJSTING CLASS 'A' BUILT LF ROOFNG WITH CAP SWEET. •DTE ND CLIA NGIES TO EXISTNG ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL OCCLR. ALL MGSTING ROOF SLOPES. SCL P AND DOWNSPOUTS S ALL REMAIN. C a R TL A x o M0 R s A 9 ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARUHMN, TX 76012 PHI (1117) 6511-5696 Uk [6i7) e3s-s60 9 Vi Oil '$ ® S c LU J C�9 j ct W W �O ^ ca .j V REVISIONS SLOG DEPT FIRST SL6MITTAL DATE 14 F® If m NIL 10127 A2.3 q 3B'-0' 72AOtt 5 2 LU LU y ?z I ! Jj �V Q 1 I I I 1 �Lt, — I I r, I roti. I I I I I I SECTION 3 Z -36'-0' PAB1L6 I I I I I ! 1 I I 1 1 0 I I I I I I I f I f � I I 1 I r, I. I I I I I j I I I I I SECTION TS PCST 2X2 TS TOP ATO SEE STRLCTLRAI-BOTTOM RAIL n PM1COF`nW LANDING PAD LtaDm s!FAQATa SUBMITTAL 1 TB�610N'D STEEL CABLE WIRE RAILW - 1 —� Ili I GUARDRAIL ELEVATION vrn-0- SECTION C mi coaT�AMa M 0 R G A M ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARLINGTON. TIL 78012 PN: (817) 835-5098 :A%; [817) 635-1899 co W ui LU LU y ?z tu a� Jj �V Q REVISON5 DATE BIDE DEFT I4 .=EB It PIRST SLIBMr TAL A4.2 OFFICIAL MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING 3132 Airway Avenue (Public Hearing No. 2 — PA -11-03) 2. Application No.: Applicant: Site Address: Zone: Project Planner: PA -11-03 Kevin Coleman 3132 Airway Avenue MP Mel Lee ATTACHMENT 7 Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15311 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Description: Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helipad/helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6' high platform on the roof of an existing 19' high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Andranian asked if other helipads within the City had been approved. Mr. Lee responded yes. He also asked about the reasons for the first denial of the application and if any of them had been corrected. Commissioners and staff discussed if any other surrounding cities beside Newport Beach stated that they were in opposition, City policies on helipads, and where other helipad locations were within the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS Kevin Coleman, applicant, has read and is in agreement with the conditions of approval. He also addressed the concerns of the application. Chair Dickson asked for clarification with how many flights per day, location of where the maintenance/fueling will take place and where the helicopter will be stored. Mr. Coleman responded it does not fly on a daily basis; it is a private helicopter. Maintenance/fueling will occur off-site and the helicopter will be stored on the helipad. Denis S. LaBonge, adjacent business owner, spoke in opposition of the application. Beth Refakus, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the increased intensity of the flight activity, noise and debris. n� Mike Manclark, owner of the helicopter, responded to Commissioners questions and public comments. Mr. Coleman responded to the public comments. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioners discussed the concerns and public comments about the application. MOTION: Hereby approve that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for Planning Application PA -11-03, conditional use permit for a private helistop for Leading Edge Aviation Services at 3132 Airway Avenue based on the findings set forth in Exhibit A, and subject to conditions set forth in Exhibit B with the following modification: Condition of Approval No. 4_to read: "A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7:00 pm Sunday". Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, asked the Commissioners if they wanted the hours of operation on Sunday, in Condition of Approval No. 4, to be changed to 8 a.m. to coincide with the same hours as John Wayne Airport. Commissioner McCarthy agreed. RESOLUTION 15-54 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE The motion carried by the following roil call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None j19 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11- 03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011 the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL by the City Council of Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -11-03 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. )-� PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2E Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on September 28, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1 Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission P-3 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS for approval PA -11-03 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on-site as well as those on the surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. c. The Industrial Park land use designation permits a wide range of uses, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Approval of CUP would be consistent with the proximity of the subject property to John Wayne Airport. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Finding: The conditional use permit substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Specifically, because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general guidelines: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. On July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for heliports, on a 4-1 vote. In addition, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. The modifications to the PA -11-03 building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properties. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. 3 The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 1-1 IX) EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA -11-03 Ping. 1. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 2. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report, Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Specifically, refueling and overnight maintenance in the helistop area are expressly prohibited. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 3. Any visible steel beams supporting the helistop shall be painted to match the existing building, subject to Planning Division approval. 4. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am - 7:00 pm Sunday. 5. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 6. Helistop noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dB CNEL maximum noise level as identified in the noise study. 7. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, PA -11-03 and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and the applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. The planning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked, The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the planning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his/her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a,m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained, Bldg. 4. Comply with the requirements of the adopted 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical code , 2013 California Plumbing code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance ) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Fire 5. Helistop shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: AQMD 1 Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at 131 PA -11-03 (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. z� ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: -� SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5811 mel.lee@costamesaca_gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. APPLICANT The applicant is Kevin A. Coleman, who is also the owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval or denial of the helistop to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission resolution. (P BACKGROUN Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. The subject property abuts John Wayne Airport (JWA) to the east. On April 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for a tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement included a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building (see site photos Attachment 2). This tenant improvement was finaled in October 2011. The second phase of the tenant improvement was to be the construction of the heiistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helico ter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city ,planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. Planning Commission Recommendation of Denial to City Council On August 8, 2011, Planning Commission considered the request. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the hearing. The Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting no, Commissioner Salcedo absent). The Planning Commission's recommendation of denial was based on the following: • The Planning Commission was concerned that potential noise impacts of the proposed helistop to surrounding properties had not been identified or analyzed, due to the fact that at the time the project went before the Planning Commission, a noise study had not been prepared; a The Planning Commission was concerned that, although the subject site is not part of the JWA property or airport facility, the proposal constituted an expansion of aircraft activities beyond the existing footprint of JWA; The Planning Commission was concerned that potential changes in the type of helicopter, i.e., the "quiet" helicopter proposed by the applicant (see photo in Attachment 3) versus the potential for a different, noisier, helicopter, could result in additional noise impacts to surrounding properties; and 10 The Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed use, i.e., a private helistop facility, provided no benefit to the citizens of Costa Mesa compared to helipads/helistops utilized by hospitals or law enforcement agencies. The August 8, 2011 Planning Commission staff reports and meeting minute excerpts are attached to this report for reference. The reports, meeting minutes, and video can also be found on the City's website at the below link: htto://www.costamesaca.goviindex.asr)x?page=1822 The project, with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, was scheduled for the November 1, 2011 City Council hearing. Between the time the Planning Commission considered the project and it was scheduled for City Council, the following public correspondence in opposition to the project were received as listed below (copies are attached to this staff report — Attachment 5): 1. Letter from the Mayor of Newport Beach dated August 5, 2011 — note that an email was also provided by the Newport Beach Community Development Director dated September 11, 2015 affirming that the City remains opposed to the proposal; 2. Email from the owner of 3100 Airway Avenue dated August 8, 2011; 3. Letters from Robert C. Hawkins (who also spoke at the hearing) dated July 21, 2011 and August 8, 2011; 4. Letter from the owner of 182 Brandywine Terrace date August 23, 2011; and 5. Email from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated October 18, 2011. The applicant requested several continuances before withdrawing the item from the City Council Calendar on June 19, 2012. In the interim, 6 additional public correspondence it opposing the project were received (copies are attached to this staff report — Attachment 5): 1. Letter from the owner of 3140 Airway Avenue dated February 6, 2012; 2. Letter from the owner of 3198-M Airport Loop Drive dated March 5, 2012; 3. Letter from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated March 6, 2012; 4. Additional letters from Robert C. Hawkins dated March 2, 2012 and June 12, 2012; and 5. Additional email from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated June 27, 2012. Because of the amount of time that has elapsed between the time the project was last considered at a public hearing, it is being brought back to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. All of the above commenters will receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing date. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents, which are attached to the August 8, 2011 staff report (Attachment 10), explains that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than house other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" is used to describe the proposed facility in this report. Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP is attached to the August 8, 2011 staff report (see Attachment 10). 1 5"�- ANALYSIS If the Commission were to recommend approval of the request, the following information is provided: Current Status of ALUC approval The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed Facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), as well as the AELUP for Heliports, on July 21. 2011. Accordinq to ALUC, the approval is still valid: The ALUC determined that the proposed helistop was consistent with the AELUP, on a 4-1 vote. The determination that the project was consistent with the AELUP included the following: Although Mariners Christian School is approximately 900 feet to the west of the subject property, the school will not be underneath any flight paths for the proposed facility (see Attachment 3). Potential noise impacts by the proposed of the facility, surrounding uses, and the the facility (see Attachment 7). use will be negligible due to the location approach and departure paths used for The proposed approach and departure paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the airport and will be in compliance with FAA regulations, The applicant has obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. Staff contacted Lea Choum, Land Use Manager of JWA, on September 15, 2015 and confirmed that the determination of the ALUC remains valid since there have been no changes to the project (see Attachment 5). The applicant's noise study dated August 24. 2011, which is beingypdatedr concluded that there would be no si nificant noise impacts to surrounding properties as a result of the helistop operations. After the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant prepared a noise study for the City Council's consideration, which was withdrawn prior to the public hearing (see Attachment 7). The noise study, prepared by Acoustics Group Inc., concluded that there would be no increase in noise impacts to surrounding uses (including noise -sensitive uses such as the nearby Mariner's Christian School) because the subject site is within the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of JWA, and that the helistop nose would be below this City, County, and FAA noise standard for sensitive receptors. At Mariner's Christian School, the existing CNEL from JWA is 62 dB. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. As noted earlier, the noise study is in the process of being updated by the consultant and will be presented at the September 28, 2015 meeting. 153 • Owner/Operator is required to fully comply with conditions required by Caltrans and the FAA. The helistop design is based on the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics design criteria. Other than standard conditions related to future changes in operations and aesthetic issues, staff is not recommending additional conditions related to the use/operation of the helistop that would be above and beyond those required by Caltrans or the FAA. • The modifications to the building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properie According to the applicant, the facility will consist of a 40 foot long by 40 foot wide metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (i.e., lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard pad markings. A diagram showing the proposed pad markings is included in Attachment 6. The overall elevation above ground level of the helistop is 25 feet, approximately 6 feet over the roof of the existing industrial building, which is approximately 19 feet in height. The pad will be supported by steel beams, the footings for which were previously installed for the pad. If approved, staff is requiring the beams to be painted to match the existing building. It is not possible to screen the helistop since any elements extending above the helistop level would be considered obstructions and would not be allowed by the FAA or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The helistop and the surrounding environment have been very carefully designed to meet all airspace obstruction -clearance requirements. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Air�vaZ Avenue. The proposed helistop is approximately 225 feet from the front property line, toward the southerly rear of the existing building. As noted earlier, the proposed helistop will have an overall elevation above ground level of 25 feet, approximately 6 feet above the roof of the existing building. The use of the helistop is for a private helico ter only — the facility will not be open to the general ubiic, i.e., a helipart. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are anticipated for the helistop. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. This is reflected in the conditions if the Planning Commission recommends approval. • No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY In accordance the General Plan Land Use Element, the use is required to comply with the State permitting procedures and with all conditions of approval imposed and/or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.' With these approvals in place, the use will be in conformance with the City's General Plan, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on the street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. As discussed earlier in this report, notice was also provided to all persons who submitted prior correspondence for the project. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the facility to the City Council as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the facility to the City Council as proposed, based on the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the August 8, 2011 meeting as discussed earlier in this report. Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element, Pages LU -15 and LU -16. CONCLUSION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval or denial of the requested conditional use permit for the private helistop facility. — to _e MEL LEE, AICP CLAIRE FLYNN, AIUP Senior Planner Asst. Development Services Director Attachments-. 1. - - •errs-�rn�n . 2. �. . 3.w / / r A �' ■ ■ r - r - rr- ■ I ■ : r ■ Reve,- ei • • • • der 6.-PtaTTV 7. Noise Study 8. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts 9. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Resolution 10. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Reports and Attachments Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Distribution List I 3j ('e7 AL Ca�a�lsa.�t� ira.4C�ou�alCr.7c, N�i_wa�dt Slibra_ August 24, 2011 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 HTTACHMENT 7 Receive( City of Costa M'36a DevelOPM-9nt $ardcas Dedcrtment AUG .2.4.2011 Subject: Analysis of the Proposed Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa %Mesa, CA. Reference: Net Development Company Helistop Specifications prepared by Heliplanners, dated Parch 15, 2011. Dear Mr. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has reviewed the referenced information and analyzed the noise from the proposed Helistop project. Because of the proximity of the project to Orange County John Wayne Airport (SNA), the noise produced by helistop operations is expected to be overshadowed by the existing and future noise of the airport. This letter report provides a summary of the noise levels expected to be generated by the helistop and a comparison with the SIVA noise contours. The project site is located at 3132 Airway Avenue, in the City of Costa IMesa. As shown in the vicinity map in the Attachment, the site is located northwest of SNA. Landuses to the north, west, and south of the site are industrial. There are no residential receptors or other noise sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Mariner's Christian School is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site at 300 Fischer Avenue. August 24, 2011 1 �9 ACOUSTICSi - � -.. 2102 Business Canter Drive, Suits 190 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 • Voice 877.595.9989 . Fax Net Devel•ojoment Company Hedlstap .Prof sot in Costa Mesa, CA The Federal Aviation Administration's integrated Noise Model (IvM) Version 7.0 was used to determine the future noise levels from tree project. A Eurocopter EC -135 helicopter will be used by the applicant at the helistop. The helistop approach tracks are from the north and southwest a 175 degree and 40 degree true headings, respectively. Final approach slopes for Both approach tracks were modeled using default va!ues of S to 1. Depai�ures are on the same path, but with opposite headings. The locations of the flight tracks relative to the project site are shown in the Attachment. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrives and 3 departures per week are forecasted for the hel,stop. All operations wou€d occur during the daytime between 7arrm and 7pm. The arrivals and departures were assumed to be continuous over a 12 month period and evenly distributed over 365 days per year. Figure 1 shoves the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours that would be generated by helistop operations in relation to the existing land use and SNA noise contours. As shoe+in in the figure, the future CNEEIL from Helistop operations would be less than the CNEL generated by aircraft operations a`. SNA. Additionally, helistop noise would be below the City, County and FAA noise standards of 65 dB CINEL for sensitive receptors. At ?vlariner's Christian School the existing CNE! from SIVA airport operations is 62 dB CNEL. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 45.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. Noise generated by future helistop operations would not result in significant noise impacts at the project site and adjacent properties. CONCLUSION Analyses have been conducted to evaluate the fature noise level that would be generated by the Net Development Company Heiistop. The ana yses considered the helicopter type, forecasted daily operations, approach and departure tracks, and default operational profiles. Results of the lrNV modeling indicated that the future CNEL generated by helistop operations would be below existing aircraft noise levels from SNA and would also comply with all City, County and applicabie exterior CNEL standards for noise sensitive receptor locations. Future i-eiistop noise levels would be 46.1 dB CN L at Mariner's Christian School and would be approximately 16 dB beiovv existing aircraft noise levels frorn SNA. In addition, future helicopter fight tracks would not pass over the school site. Noise generated by future :iel stop operations would not result in significant noise impacts a} the pro;lect site and adjacent propert'es. August 29, 2011 1 3� 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 • Voice 877.595.9989 - Fax Net Deveiopment Company Hebstop Project in Costa Mesa, CA Please contact I`Mr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Acousms GROUP, INC. (:�/ 4 ';'- Robert Woo Principal Consultant August 24, 2019 = :.-'' r 2102 Business Canter Drive, Suite 110 Irvine, CA 92812 877.595.9988 - Voice 1 �9 877.393.9989 - Fax 91 Development Company Hellstop Project in Costa klasa, CA Figure 1. Predicted Net :Deve ooment Company Helistop Noise Levels. August 2d, 2011 �CO[TsrICS► _ _. 2102 Business Center ©rive, Suide 130 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 - Voice 877,595.9989 - Fax jyu August 28, 2011 Net; Developmer+.t Company Ha istop Project in Costa Mesa, CA A T TACHME-NT A<CO[JSTZCS 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 !/vine, CA 92612 877.395.9988 - Voice 141 877.593.9989 - F3)r r 1.2 III { 1 ti[iAllffEC(riR�iY I 40 �q r I t _ I I I i /`,aafiNha4uxfH1Y f ` JJ � . i r r rrs�n� Si TE LAYOUT -"" HELISTOP DETAIL 110ipo-t Data Pane! - i. 1 --- _ - tin.: -- :.._...� ;w�,:� _ ,... . � � y...�.•. , ild �_ / �- �•- ' — SOUTHWESfEIEVATION ^r"'SWTHEASTEIEVATION -' ----- _ j THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE ANO AGENCY APPM rVALS ONLY. NOT FOR CONS I RLIC PION, VICINITY MAP I„ - ATTACHMENT 8 08-08-11 PC Minute Excerpt for PA -11-03 - Unofficial Until Approved 5. Application No.: Site Address: Applicant: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental Determination: PA -11-03 3132 Airway Avenue Kevin Coleman MP Mel Lee Exempt Description: Conditional use permit to install a 40 foot (long) x 40 foot (wide) helipadlhelistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6' high platform on the roof of an existing 19' high building. The proposed helipad has been approved by the Airport Land Use Commission and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. Kevin Coleman, applicant, discussed the private property use of the proposed facility; noise impacts; the flight path used by John Wayne Airport; and receiving approval from the other regulatory agencies. Robert C. Hawkins of the Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins, representing individuals and several groups including Mariners Community Association and AirFair, discussed his objection to staff's recommendation of approval and of the finding of exemption from CEQA. The Commissioners discussed their concerns relating to the airport footprint, noise impacts, and if this use is good for Costa Mesa. MOTION: Recommend that the City Council deny Planning Application PA -11- 03, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC -11-33, based on the evidence in the record and the denial findings contained in Exhibit "A". Moved by Vice Chair Sara Clark, seconded by Chair Colin McCarthy. During discussion on the motion, Commissioner Fitzpatrick made a substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Delay the decision tonight until such time the Commission can clarify and understand the issues of the City of Newport Beach and AirFair. Direct staff to work with the City of Newport Beach and AirFair to obtain their official positions. The substitute motion died for lack of a second. 193 Commissioner Fitzpatrick reiterated his non-support of the motion. The Chair and Vice Chair Clark said this application will go before the City Council, the policy-making body. Deputy City Attorney Bettenhausen clarified the original motion and the Chair agreed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Colin McCarthy, Vice Chair Sam Clark, and Commissioner Robert Dickson Noes: Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick Absent: Commissioner Edward Salcedo. The Chair explained the appeal process. ) LH ATTACHMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO. PC -11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction and operation of a 40 foot (long) x 40 foot (wide) helistop on a 6 -foot high platform. The helistop has an overall elevation 25 feet above ground level as it is located on the rooftop of an existing 19 -foot tall industrial building. The facility will generally average three landings and three departures per week with actual activities varying from day to day. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on Sunday; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2011. alin McCarthy, Chair Costa Mesa Planning Com ion 145- STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE I, Claire Flynn, secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 8, 2011, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCCARTHY, CLARK, DICKSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FITZPATRICK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SALCEDO ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE � l Secretary, Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS PA -11.03 A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with uses both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. C. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has recommended denial of PA -11-03. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(x), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. 141 \TTACHMENT 10 PL14MMING COMMISSION 5UPPLEMENTAL MENORANDUN MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A PROPOSED HELISTOP 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: AUGUST 1, 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 (m1ee(d6.costa-mesa.ca.us) Attached is additional analysis, in a Q and A format, of the proposed helistop based on input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): 1. What is the existing "footprint" of John Wayne Airport (JWA)? An attached exhibit from the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JWA (AELUP) shows the current physical footprint of the airport. The footprint is defined as the legal boundary of real property owned by the County of Orange for JWA. 2. Will the proposed helistop expand this footprint? No. An expansion of the JWA footprint requires real property acquisition by the County of Orange. According to Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer for John Wayne Airport, the proposed project does not involve expansion of the airport footprint because the project site is 100% privately owned. Because the proposed helistop is a private facility, it is not part of the airport footprint (see attached Google Map). This has been added to the findings of the revised approval resolution attached. 3. Will the proposed helistop increase noise in the area? According to the staff report prepared for ALUC (handwritten pages 21 and 22 of the Commission staff report), the proposed helistop is within the 65 decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour for JWA. Additionally, according to the applicant, the operator of the proposed helistop currently flies his helicopter to and from the existing Martin Helipad at the airport, which is approximately 200 yards to the north of the proposed facility. The staff report for ALUC concluded that noise impacts from the proposed facility would be negiigibie as a result of the location, surrounding uses, limited number of operations, and the approach/departure paths for the facility. 4. Will the fight path for the helistop impact Mariner's Christian School? No. As noted in the staff report prepared for ALUC (handwritten page 21 of the Commission staff report), Mariner's Christian School, which is approximately 900 jqb feet to the west of the subject property, is not beneath the departure and arrival flight paths for the proposed helistop. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requiring that the flight path for the helicopter (which currently departs and arrives from the Martin Helipad at John Wayne Airport) remain unchanged. Therefore, although the proposed helipad will be on private property, the actual flight path for the helicopter with regard to Mariner's Christian School does not change. The proposed departure and arrival paths correspond to the existing helicopter paths designated by the Air traffic Control Tower at JWA and will be in compliance with FAA regulations. 5. Will the hours of operation for the helistop differ from the airport? Yes, as proposed. The applicant is proposing the hours of operation for the helistop to be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. However, JWA's hours of operation on Sundays are 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. Although the hours of operation apply to commercial flights, and not to private facilities, staff is recommending an additional condition of approval (Condition no. 6) requiring the Sunday hours of operation to be consistent with the airport. cc: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attachments: 1. JWA Map 2. Google Map of Subject Property and JWA File: 080811 PA1 1035uppMema Date: 080111 Time: 1. Oo.m. )LJ9 n I _ &ALCAWA rAMIAM A OT, AIAK�T IIAIA 77 i� 77 w%�igwT'— AWoil L II.w+Y IMwOAl1111ML AIM �•1 - �- � � _ ��--`_� - ""�« . ter.. _� � � � '� • � v — .�•�-fir M�mmw �auu u'�#Y wsJ m.�n�l�K�r � O — - -- I V InduUrwl O F� , .ate' -.•�: 13'.._ i � W� u�i�f. E. • i'��7i�•�'~C�•�'�li�l�Y��y - FYI OL 3i F 1 � �� : iL'!'•L� ' .- � .._—.... - n..e _.. ��.e s m� a r)� u,e,n n W.ar _ ;l' ' u'1iSP�!_ 1 r LrAu.bi.l FAA Afr$4.I !TAW j- Copy of f .A?IN WATNE ar- ONArIOE COUNTY 47-5 BP 3132 Airway Avenue, Costa hies -A-GoogleMaps Page I of I ^—F—FAOHMaN-r 2 Address 3132 Airway Ave ;Jrt Google Maps on your phone o,c maos Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Text the word 'GMAPS" to 46645 3 Ygo Feov" -4, irp—t Dr an i.*-- C r 4L pol�l nor j vu'' Tj OA 40 Y r. J, d r �r S 4b 02.011 Soogle -Map datiD201 1 Google - (5-1 httn --//mans. gooizle.com/matps?f=q&source=s q&h1=en&Reocode=&q=3132+Airway+Av... 08/01/2011 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA R E'PDRT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2011 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A PROPOSED HELISTOP 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: JULY 28, 2011 —Z. 5 ITEM NUMBER; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 (mlee&i.costa-mesa.ca.us) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction and operation of a 40 foot (long) by 40 foot (wide) helistop on a 6 -foot high platform. The helistop has an overall elevation of 25 feet above ground level because it is located on the rooftop of an existing 19 -foot tall building. .-- .LTL4 The applicant is Kevin A. Coleman, the owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION, Recommend approval to City Council by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents explain that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than house other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" will be used to describe the proposed facility in the remainder of this report. Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. On April 1 Tc)- 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for an 11,874 square foot tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement includes a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building. The tenant improvement is currently under construction (see attached photos). The second phase of the tenant improvement includes the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP is attached to this report for reference (Attachment 3). City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing 153 with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. ANALYSIS Staff Justifications for Approval Staff supports the proposed facility based on the following: • The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange Count ALUC has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), as well as the AELUP for Heliports. On July 21, 2011, the ALUC determined that the proposed helistop was consistent with the AELUP, on a 4-1 vote. The determination that the project was consistent with the AELUP included the following: ■ Although Mariners Christian School is approximately 900 feet to the west of the subject property, the school will not be underneath any flight paths for the proposed facility. • Potential noise impacts by the proposed use will be negligible due to the location of the facility, surrounding uses, and the approach and departure paths used for the facility. The proposed approach and departure paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the airport and will be in compliance with FAA regulations. The applicant has obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011, which amounts to approval, at least in concept, to the proposed facility. These documents are included in the applicant's submittal package to ALUC, which is attached to this report. It should be noted that ALUC received a letter in opposition to the proposed facility, stating that the project should not be approved because it was not consistent with the ALEUP (Attachment 4). However, as noted earlier, ALUC determined that the project was consistent with the AELUP. RK • Owner/Operator shall fully comply with conditions required by Caltrans and the FAA, The helistop design is based on the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics design criteria. Other than standard conditions related to future changes in operations and aesthetic issues, staff is not recommending additional conditions related to the use/operation of the helistop that would be above and beyond those required by Caltrans or the FAA. • The modifications to the building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surroundin properties. According to the applicant, the facility will consist of a 40 foot long by 40 foot wide metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (i.e., lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard pad markings. A diagram showing the proposed pad markings is included in the attached application package that was submitted to ALLIC. The overall elevation above ground level of the helistop is 25 feet, approximately 6 feet over the roof of the existing industrial building, which is approximately 19 feet in height. The pad will be supported by steel beams, which staff is requiring to be painted to match the existing building (condition no. 3). It is not possible to screen the helistop since any elements extending above the helistop level would be considered obstructions and would not be allowed by the FAA or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The helistop and the surrounding environment have been very carefully designed to meet all airspace obstruction -clearance requirements. • The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surroundingproperties due to itsproximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The proposed helistop is approximately 225 feet from the front property line, toward the southerly rear of the existing building. As noted earlier, the proposed helistop will have an overall elevation above ground level of 25 feet, approximately 6 feet above the roof of the existing building. • The use of the helistop is fora private helicopter only -- the facility will not be open to the general public, i.e. a heliport. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. The applicant anticipates and average of three landings and three departures per week — and this activity will vary on a daily basis. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. Condition of approval no. 4 establishes no more than 2 takeoffs and 2 landings per day and no more than 4 takeoffs and 4 landings per week. + No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. 15� GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY In accordance the General Plan Land Use Element, the use is required to comply with the State permitting procedures and with all conditions of approval imposed and/or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. With these approvals in place, the use will be in conformance with the City's General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the facility as proposed by the applicant, or 2. Recommend denial of the facility as proposed. If the use is denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION This proposal has received final approval from the Airport Land Use Commission, conditional approval from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration. It is staffs opinion that, based on review of the other regulatory agencies, the location and the recommended conditions, the helistop will not create any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Therefore, staff supports the request. r' 'r• MEL LEE, AICP CLAIRE FLYNN,,• ICP Senior Planner Acting Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 3. ALUC Approval Letter, Agenda, Staff Report, and Application Package -Fairy Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element, Page LU -15. IS cc: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 File: 080811FA1103 I Date: M5 1 Time: 1:00 .m. 151 July 22, 2011 Kevin Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Dear Mr. Coleman: -ACHN1ENT 3 During the meeting held on July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried by a 4 to I vote, to find the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Er virons Land Use Plan (AEL UP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and AEL UP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. Please contact Lea Chourn, at (949) 252-5123 or via email at ichoum`a:ocair.com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION .nuc FOR OR-kNGE COL NTY 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 252-5170 Fax (949) 252-6012 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY July 21, 2011 LEASE NOTE LOCATIOi TIME: 4:00 p.m. PLACE: John Wayne Airport 3160 Airway Avenue SUBJECT: Regular Meeting Costa Mesa, CA Airport Commission Hearing Room NOTICE PERSONS ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING AGENDA. THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS STATED IN THE AGENDA ITEM OR UNDERLYING STAFF REPORTS SIMPLY REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION STAFF AND THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION MAY DEVIATE THEREFROM. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING ON ITEMS LISTED IN THIS AGENDA, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN THE EDDIE MARTIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 3160 AIRWAY AVENUE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, 8:00 A.M. — 5:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. AGENDA ITEMS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE BY CALLING (949) 252-5170. AGENDA N'n PLEDGE: APPROVAL OF :MIN'llTES: Regular Meeting of June l6, 201 l: I_q ALUC Agenda Page 2 July 21, 2011 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Alternate Commissioners Present NEW BUSINESS: Gerald Bresnahan, Rod Propst, Leslie Daigle, Jon Dumitru, Jim Righeimer Herman Beverburg and Tom O'Malley Stephen Beverburg 1. Recd nest for Consideration of Helistoo at 31.32 Airwav Avenue: Leading Edge Aviation Services has submitted for ALUC consistency review a proposal to establish a private -use helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. No maintenance or refueling activities will take place. The helistop will serve as a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers only. Recommendation: That the Commission find the Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the AEL UP for JYVA and the AEL UP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. 2. Administrative Status Report: Receive and file memo regarding various administrative activities/issues, Commission correspondence sent/received, and pending project reviews. 3. Proceedings with Consistent Agencies: Aliso Viejo (April 15, 2004), Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa (October 17, 2001), Cypress (August 16, 2001), Fullerton (June 17, 2004), Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest (June 15, 2006) Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach (2006), Santa Ana (December 18, 2008), Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, and County of Orange. Proceedings with Inconsistent Agencies: Laguna Woods (April 19, 2001) and Seal Beach. 5. Items of Interest to the Commissioners: Commissioners may comment on agenda or non -agenda matters, and ask questions of or give direction to staff, provided that no action may be taken on off - agenda items. 6. Items of Interest to the Public: Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. ADJOURINMENT: Next Regular Meeting: August 18, 2011 1W) AGENDA ITEM 1 July 21, 2011 TO: Commissioners/Alternates FROM: Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer SUBJECT: Request for Consideration of Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Background Leading Edge Aviation Services has submitted for ALUC consistency review a proposal to establish a private -use helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. Leading Edge intends to use the helistop for its corporate travel needs between its various facilities (See Attachment 1 to view the project location map). There are no plans to perform maintenance or refueling activities, the helistop wil serve as a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers only. Leading Edge is also building a second floor addition office on top of the existing building. The office will be one room at 950 square feet. The helistop will be located outside of the second floor office (See Attachment 2 to view the roof plan for 3132 Airway Avenue). The project still requires approval of a conditional use permit by the City of Costa Mesa to allow a heiistop on the project site. Leading Edge anticipates that the proposed helistop will be reviewed by the City Costa Mesa Planning Commission at its August 10, 2011 meeting. The project is located in an area zoned Multi Purpose (MP) industrial Paris and is surrounded by John Mayne Airport to the north and east, light industrialJoffice/research uses to the south, and light industrial/office/research uses and Mariners Christian School to the west. Mariners Christian School is about 900 feet west of the project site but not beneath proposed flight paths. Leading Edge is proposing 3 takeoffs and landings per week. The hours of operation for the Helistop will be Monday through Sunday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (See Attachment 3 to view the Helistop Site Layout and Helistop Detail). Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires ALUC review and action on each heliport/ helistop proposal within Orange County prior to issuance of an operating permit to the sponsor by Caltrans/Aeronautics Program. AELUP Issues Staff has identified noise impact and airspace safety as potential AELUP issues. Regarding the Noise Issue: This site and the adjoining properties are zoned for industrial uses. The impacts from noise generation will be negligible as a result of the location, surrounding uses, limited number of operations, and the approach/departure paths used for the facility. Iii Agenda Item I- Helistop at 3132 Airway 712112011 Page 2 The proposed departure and arrival paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the Air Traffic Control Tower at JWA and will be in compliance with FAA Regulations (See Attachment 4 to view the proposed helistop within the 65 CNEL noise contour for JWA). Regarding Building Height Issues: The proposed second floor office addition, the helistop platform and lighted windcone do not penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface for JWA. The transitional surface would be penetrated at 133' Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). The office is proposed at 89' AMSL, the platform at 77'AMSL and the lighted windcone at 94' AMSL. The highest portions of the proposed project are below the 7:1 transitional surface for JWA (See Attachment 5 to view the proposed project within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA). Regarding the Airspace Safety Issue: Following the submittal of FAA Form 7=480-1 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" by the project sponsor, the FAA Western Pacific Regional Office completed an Airspace Analysis and determined that the proposal is acceptable but is subject to the following conditional provisions specified below prior to being issued an operational permit. These conditional provisions will ensure that there will not be any adverse effects to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft from an airspace utilization standpoint. The FAA response includes comments from the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at John Wayne Airport (JWA) that are based solely on Air Traffic Control operational perspective. The following must be in effect prior to being operational (See Attachment 6 to view the FAA Airspace Study): a. Specific arrival and departure procedures/routes for use during Rwy 19 and Rwy 01 operations are mandated within a "Letter of Agreement" (LOA) between Leading Edge and the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC). b. Final procedures are dependent upon completion of a local "Safety Risk Management/Safety Management System (SRM/SMS) review process and made with Mr. Doug Blaul, Acting Air Traffic Manager, at 714-668-0141 x114. c. Contact should be made with the California Departrrient of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (Caltrans) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport permit once the SR.M/SMS review process has been completed. Point of contact is Mr. Jeff Brown, Chief, Office of Airports. As part of the submittal package to ALUC, the project sponsor has also included the Concept Plans for the helistop. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics has reviewed these plans and conditionally approved them as of March 15, 2011. Caltrans approval is conditional subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, local approval and other permit requirements through the City of Costa Mesa. These conceptual plans are included as exhibits within the submittal package to the ALUC (See Attachment 7). Conclusion Subject to compliance with the conditions required by the FAA, as well as adherence to the operational parameters relating to flight frequency stated by the project sponsor, the project will be a compatible land use at the planned location and would be Consistent with the pertinent guidelines of the AEL UP for JWA and the AEL UP for Heliports. Agenda [tem 1- Hclistop at 3132 Airway 7121/2011 Page 3 Recommendation That the Commission find the Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the AELUP for JWA and the AELUP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. Respectfully submitted, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer Attachments: I. Project Location Map 2. Roof Plan 3. Helistop Site Layout and Detail 4. JWA CNEL Noise Contour Exhibit 5. JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Exhibit 6. FAA Airspace Study (Airspace Case No. 2007 -AWP -166 -NRA) 7. Sponsor Submittal Package to ALUC I �3 Attachment 2 A2.3 n MO OY OO�I.i 04/waa�V 4 Ell 0.1 WV_ 2y O N� Attachment 2 A2.3 - �r I }i I f '� 1 oarL{?s I n� s • �:� ; r PORT [[ROPE£tTY _ y _� s•. "'u:ru` .u• va+.^ciw. �I 5 /'�:������i� I I ��-� // / �!�' 'iowey..'.'�u�°^. t •r-/ �l, fr.•� I I ' � !}I � � ' '� i ••e. / // � ��..��` � �o ;� _ / ��-"r • !I ^�_ r w' nom. r � II . jtti\J/ /' ' ��■ // � ��� �' �1�� 1 + r I /i i • L •.�.� .� ` _.�%ter _ _�cw.�*s1+ � / %I / ��. i ti`s , - /, / 1 1 I:I �' .rl- � � / •;'�.,� ,.-,'-_s �. I / /I // '% 4L .R � / � � + v � r�. •.s nriF�i1. � f /`.-s�._ 1- .- '`1 � �.�'c�.s'a'c��i , / - I // / SAS ` �� Y" ■ l/ I , :�� vex m: WINN 44 r I �G' > / �' �: •• ex AMORT KRDftKIY t]I7AI:UeCOUHiY i SITE LAYOUT HELISTOP DETAIL` _ ,. _ —.... — ....._ - - ._ _�- .� .• ..._._.._. _ _ -•--_ -- --T - - - PWW jr- HM .... v ■T_'. �4 , Y .i,r`=r I t¢ nyeWIT "JM j Y I x x J^ y^ SOUTHE.ST ELEVATION ' � i �_ � _ i ` • ! SOUTHW[ST ELEVATION T . , •,, - _ — 1 �?` S i . Na'" . ' °" • THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVALS ONF_Y. NO r FGR CAHSiRIIC'fIQN.� _%�-:"u« �s tt 'Z7`_ _iu�.i a •��..� ov ¢:r::_-_ s.. a- yt e:rres-.= L..— ^ti IWY vY .. e..._ 1 ',� / r _ a , . - ' - Y:. - q. t•n.es �r4 . = '.. -- uy u.�. _: — ` ._� —._- c. `c -.w.; Capp-kwNa �. .-. . a . = � N -v tip... u:��v ,• _ r'--_:-� VIGhi1Tf HEAP \� � vwi � � a v.. •,=.-, I -... � � J � .....�- " ' '-—.� / - ra:r �-a.: —i— _-.-'-��— -- -- - __�--*.---r-_-.•, r� - � « o r � Allacftnwnl3 ' r �7 �.i, - �r L z PjW ,4 d CO YA= ME 'lly a r rJ No'Le: Counly Unincorporated araas ars shown in w1hite. John Mayne Airport Impact Zones LEGEND SO— CNEL CONTOUR RUNWAY ?ROT'-;CTION ZONE CFTY 3OUNDMES AJRPOR7 BOUNDARIES TUST114", -e� 40, rw S"T.tM4_4 wdrAx 1rum. I jCM YA"rA 1XVC4 NCOO Czw*-'W and ?�C6 -f TV "M !;u-wlkv ru rdfv �txrtv Kawi,A Plvci, Orlic-ax Date J Attachment 4 �F+IIMws;(�� _ .- ,- r.,_.•�!r-v.a •tea. PAX FART 7 7 a Airnart 06sfruction Imanina U S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration hl=. __f__ery Iirtgn.. a�l_oLar.a• s l C! rAv (n7i.a I?t; -- :QC'J O Vies' Region PC) Boz 92007 Los Angeles Airports Disiticl Office Los Angeles CA 90009 ._a3� l'!1e E'c is raL :'IV i_Z:iI')n I�dtrl i_ Ii si :) ion c,-)mcr Ie:_zd at1 si r -s c; ace __udy in r.'espor.5e ::o y:'?i: 1, oroCo_3I sun,ni li'd o!i t•'ArA ''c ,:m lJ-:t NoCiop .:C I.cu!di;r:y A!'na Pro'�osa for 7..!)m _--LlvaC1.7n and es::ab1Lsh:mi,iC 0vace tie LiCfir in _csta mesa, alitorr:ia, Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable but is subject to the following conditional provisions 3pecifflad below oeior to -beincl issued an operational petit to in3lira there Will noC be any adver3a effects to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft, Our ray c.n.3_ n_Lu __s cc}mt an',.s t:nsC h,v•_ bear. i^ed trom ..h_ Ai.. Tri .:.'L_ C=,nt_o' ...w-- (r+l ac. ;:hr1 WA. /na Airo^.i.': :SNA) tha-, ar„ basad 5O134.y on .;Lr rrat"I .ontr.,_ 'J'J2 _3 t17ad:?03e, L':l3__ be;.n,4 a �raLio:IM_ . i'.. �U@(-'_CL= 3=rLV3_. 9fiw de?1ft;Ife P r 0 C: riS/roe_"33 CJr t.3 rt ri;n Rwy 1Y and Rvuy "I uuer3tion.i _.... between Leading s dga and rhe .Aic p __._ Uri CrJ1 C'J''J?, !ATC:) . b. ELn:a'_ oroccdur,_ aeElcnder:t upon cor,:pi=-ior, ot: c local "Safaty Risk Diana emen t/ Safe ty neeaqQMant S113tela (SpM/SMS) r-t•.rLe,i Prcca35 3r1 L'.'Cl!J3iOn :)I' dr ij2'!f_.Il�^1 r ..5`< '.on.tn-C7 shoul., be 'iii: 'rlLr:t'_ Mr. a'JL, IAC -Laq y L _'r3:M-an_; e r, 3°- r14-663-` i 4 1 <114, F!._ ema1L add _e3s is drjuq .:ir,_'?Z-aa .3r3v Cor:_3houLc be rte,__ ',.1'__,I Cai1.'.�r:i_a .,..rJr`.3.,.:. ;)L -.A`, r\I`!:i' D?':a=r :»i.. :3L----- -o 7. _. e a:1a=ion a:ld c fr..1n d t L 3.n. _r1 _:^_E-tg A 's a=.c3 `13L:DOr!: -e 53�1!S�iS ._Viaw pcoc__ _ hss beer. _oarp_e cd, o'.r oi,._ _. 2 3 r L:... __...._ 3:', .....-_,....,-•'.1.'CaiL Attachment 6 2 D-.-- 2 7A 8 i Ez- �2 E fL7-1 R!:7 a -2 31r r- at a n zo .i C,`:. 1 -2 3 of) s t:, i 1: :I --ICJ Cp e !- a L L.Jis •'_1 UL C.93 x...:i�r, a i � x S :1 z p _::'18^. Qi 3 r a 2-1 L v s r e x -3 a --i p,:z s t r c L2 L rd c� 0 - sa F2 t C -2 r -A rim Id g a a f -2 i,3- _ti.. iLln1 7r 0 - 00 s -2d a iJ 1 -1 7. 3 rl I t'_ a d -I C I —I r: i dc� rm 1,-i a i o n ii., r -. i w ij L- r a g; ror i y ;i g H C -i v _._dl u. :9=_J fl 4 a n - -3 3: CJC -.:c r pSj i" -l. t,. :v- rn a .%i=- -o f: Vzls datazm.Lnat-iot axpira3 z❑ oeasmi-,ar 21, 2012, unle3s it i., och,!:wi3a Qr oet b3 Ft� C -3 c-3 Xn extar-ii-in may ba raqlie3cad_trough o:.Ir jfffiaa, if naza333z—j, u? to 15-daya prior to t.ui3 axMiration data. Airport Mastar Racord, FA.N F. -cm 50110-5 2f-2il upe-fa--iDna� f a r.i 'Q_ hp -! e ! i L; f S L U , -'a'. cin' f - i! a -3 70 VC -o U -v -,,-i 33 " i O n S. of zi! a s 3i. 3i 3 G 233 n c - r .A a 7'_ !7 e 0 1 r f C 2 r. s -I0 3= L D j�3�f 3-rowri Oiv:L:iLotl Off M3 I 9128:1 94 17C) Attachment 6 §77.2A -- Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Hellports Appron}:h and Touchdown Aleu 5�f❑ty Barrtct J Depaiture Paths Width 500 (vat A 414,0001a ol `,, — —E --I - ;— from and of primary surface r -- — A 1 Padphorol Area ] Curved Approach•Dapa(luro j ~ { Approach Landing ondPaths alsu Parrnlitll,la-----�� it ' Takeoff Area Surlaca tPrlmory Surface) _ .. 711nslllonal Surfaces Sociton A•A Q �--- 250' C Extend to 4.000' from Primary Surfaco Holiporl Approach Surface d;l Slope• �;� $10130 - - Pfeifle •51opo 10:1 for military Heliports it 'a l%ighweLy or ral,l,road is loi this arra, they rattoul,d be considered as f=igure 2 having to 17' oba t runt: i.on f=or an Int eret:ate hlghwAYo 15' obatructian for other highwhys, and a T3' oj)structi.on fOr a rallroed. Attachment 6 - 1'1 d�vetopr�n co June 27, 2011 Commissioners Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County 3160 Airway Avenue; Costa mesa, California 92626+J4r'� Attention: Lea U. Chourn, Land Use Manager., Facilities Subject: Application for Airport Land Use Commission Review of Proposed Helistop Leading Edge Aviation Services, Costa Mesa, California Dear Commissioners: Leading Edge Aviation Services intends to request, from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, a permit to build a new rooftop helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. The applicant, Net Development Company, on Leading Edge's behalf, is processing the project with various aviation - related agencies including the Orange County ALUC, FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics with the assistance of Hesiplanners, a heliport planning firm. In conjunction with this process, Net Development Company and the City of Costa Mesa request that your Commission review the proposal with respect to consistency with the adopted Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Heliports in accordance with PUC Sections 21670 at seq., and with California Administrative Code Title 21, Business Regulations, Chapter 25, Aeronautics Program, Saab -Chapter 2. 1, Heliports. The following project description responds to specific items requested in the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports, ,lune 19, 2008. 1. Location of the proposed heliportJhelistop (street address) The helistop will be located at Leading Edge Aviation Systems' headquarters at: 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92625 2. Purpose of the request. Leading Edge intends to use the helistop for its corporate travel needs between its various facilities. The request is only for a helistop, simply a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers. There are no pians to perforin maintenance or refueling activities; activities that might take place at a full heliport. Leading Edge already uses part of the building for its business activities and will be concurrently building a superstructure office on top of L"he existing building. The helistop will be outside of the office. 3. Zoning of the site The site lies within Costa Mesa corporate limits and is zoned MP (Industrial Park). 4. Description of area and adjoining properties Surrounding land uses are airport and light industrial related. Sped Acaily: To the north: John Wayne Airport aircraft storage area • To the east: John Wayne Airport including Martin Aviation 3130 Alrway Avenue A Costa Mesa, Cailfornia 92£26 A Phone (714) 754-4154 A Fax (714) 7S"l 99 Attachment 7 June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 2 • To the south: Light industr aUoffice/research uses • To the west: Light industrial/office/research uses and Mariners Christian School (about 900 feet west but not beneath proposed flight paths). 5. Approach/departure paths The project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport property and sits within the Class C airspace surrounding the Airport. Our proposed approach/departure paths are shown on the enclosed Helistop Layout Plan, prepared by Heliplanners, and described below. They are specifically designed to minimize impact on John Wayne Airport's traffic patterns. The flight paths are also designed to avoid conflict with existing helicopter routes used at Centerport, approximately 1,300 feet to the south. Please understand, we are currently working with the John Wayne Airport FAA Air Traffic Control Tower and will execute a Letter of Agreement with the Tower. The Letter of Agreement would specify communications procedures and flight paths. We fully understand that the Tower Chief needs to control air traffic for a very busy airport. If he suggests changes to our proposed flight paths, we will comply with his request and modify our Helistop Layout Plan accordingly. Also note that FAA Airports Division has issued an airspace determination letter (enclosed) conditioned upon executing the Letter of Agreement. Our proposed flight paths are: • Primary approach (and alternate departure) north-northwest • Primary departure (and alternate approach) southwest. 6. Depiction of proposed Helipad Protection Zone per Section 2.1.2 of the Heliport AFLUP Section 2.1.2 mandates that the Helipad Protection Zone (HPZ) extends 280 feet out from the FATO edge. The HPZ is not specifically depicted on the enclosed Helistop Layout Plan. However, our proposed approach and departure surface alignments are depicted, centered upon each flight path. While we do not own the area beneath the HPZs, we can assure you that there are no objects that extend above landing pad elevation within those areas. In fact the site provides for full 8:1 approach/departure surface clearance for 4,000 feet along each flight path per FAR Part 77 criteria. 7. Anticipated number of approaches and departures (counted separately) during a specified time interval (day, week, month) While the facility's use will vary depending upon varying business travel needs, we anticipate an average of three landings and three departures per week. Some days may have none and some may have more. 8. Potential for creating a nuisance due to noise generated by the operation of helicopters The site is characterized by two noise -producing nearby land use categories. One of course is John Wayne Airport, subject to frequent noise events by turbine and piston aircraft, helicopters, etc. The site is also in a light industrial and distribution area where nearby land uses generate their own on-site noise due to manufacturing processes, truck deliveries, etc. There are no homes nearby to be affected by this proposal. Considering nearby land uses, the additional noise associated with infrequent helicopter activity at this project is negligible. 9. Potential for creating an accident hazard The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans' Aeronautics Program have developed safety related criteria for heliport design. The project must comply with Caltrans' design criteria in order to qualify for a Heliport Site Approval Permit, which authorizes construction, and a Heliport Permit, which authorizes flight operations, We have designed the facility in accordance with Caltrans Aeronautics' criteria. Caltrans Aeronautics has already reviewed and approved the design concept. In addition, FAA publishes its Heliport Design advisory circular. The facility is also designed in accordance with that document's recommendations and FAA has issued an airspace determination letter expressing no objection. I1� Attachment 7 June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 3 The helistop will not be equipped with instrument landing aids. Nor do we foresee instrument approaches to the site. Therefore, its use would be limited to VFR (visual flight rules) operations although, if needed, instrument approaches could be made to John Wayne Airport runways with a side step under visual conditions to land on the helistop. Leading Edge's Eurocopter EC -145 T2 helicopter is a twin -engine aircraft. Therefore, it offers engine out safety margin. 10. Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study FAA reviews helistop proposals with respect to airspace usage. FAA's analysis centers on safe and efficient use of airspace as well as safety of persons and property on the ground. We submitted an application package to FAA on March 5, 2011. FAA issued its airspace determination letter indicating that "the proposal is acceptable" on June 21, 2011 (see Item 5, above)_ We enclose a copy for your reference. 11. Type of craft proposed to be used and noise output of craft The primary user would be Leading Edge's Eurocopter EC -145 T2, which we have used as the design aircraft for dimensional and obstruction -clearance purposes. This is a twin -engine executive helicopter with a four -blade main rotor system. Noise output would be much lower than many of the aircraft currently operating at John Wayne Airport. The EC 145 T2 is a turbine - powered aircraft that incorporates a hingeless rotor system and enhanced rotor blades that reduce sound and vibration levels. 12. Description of proposed operations/facilities (maintenance/refueling, etc.) The helistop will consist only of a metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard helistop markings. Fueling and maintenance activities will not occur on site. 13. Other Agencies Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Aeronautics ensures that the physical construction will meet its criteria for its Heliport Permit. Our project team has designed the helistop specifically to meet those criteria. We have already received "conditional design approval" from Caltrans Aeronautics. In keeping with Caltrans Aeronautics policy, we will file a full formal application package upon receiving all other agency review documentation, including ALUC's. uiti of Costa Mesa: The City's Planning Commission will review the helistop proposal. As you know, ALUC review is designed to provide input to that process. We anticipate that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission will review the project at its August 10, 2011 meeting. Subsequent to that, it will go to the City Council for approval per California PUC requirement. Conclusion This project will provide a low impact facility in a light industrial area. Flight operations will be coordinated with FAA's John Wayne Air Traffic Control Tower via a Letter of Agreement. FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics have already provided their approvals. We look forward to your Commission's finding of consistency. Please call should you need additional information. nc Kevin Attachment 7 June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 4 Enclosed: Application Summary Flight Landing Pattern Site Plan Roof Plan Roof Elevation FAA Letter Caltrans Approval Stamp Costa Mesa Planning Letter Costa Mesa Planning Application & Letter Cc: Leading Edge (Michael Manclark) Heliplanners (Jeff Wright) IAttachment 7 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION APPLICATION SUMMARY FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES HELISTOP Py L A private rooftop helistop to accommodate a helicopter used for business transportation purposes. Site Location; 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Zone; Multi Purpose: MP Ap{Llicagt: Kevin A. Coleman/Leading Edge Aviation Services 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Land Owner: Kevin A. Coleman Helist Q Name: Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Hours of O oration: Monday through Sunday 7AM to 7PM aperatina Conditions: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only Number of Landin s: An average number of - 2 landings per day 7 days per week 14 landings per week Tyne of Helicopter: Representative helicopter models: weight up to 12,000 lbs EC 146 Attachment 7 IKE JONES NOAO f I 4 N-.W.9.cawp+' �.ywj V w. l�l-1.���L 1_L✓r1_�1_� `'�� � l_1_L� LI.11_�_l_� �� SITE PLAN SHOWN FOR REPERENCE ONLY EXISTNO SITE PLAN w. t AQ2 Attachment 7 6u4mDft4JL JURVAMM , —I F twcnoN I -4-V I E CNI AA9aiIt t! .ww n .wu CL �. NSA Wr.r '�1htJ�w_ O El ! CLI OilY � 1! r�rrr�r.r-r A42 Attachment 7 r� ORANGE COUNT AIRPORT PROPER j Above mean sea leve! (MSL) ---- ... 77' , oundea Elevation i Above ground level (AGL) 25' ei(s) EC -135, ;:C-146 j mum main rotor diameter 36.3' mum overall length .42,6' mum gross takeoff -,veight 7;904 Poonds mum fuel capacity 258 Gallons i ] (final aporoach & takeoff area) lengt.s do width (or diametar)* 65' x 65' (touchdown do liftoff area) length do width r •40' x 40' ty area width-$ 12.5' ! unobstructed width (FATO plus safety area on each side)* g0' x 90' /water separator minimum fuel retention capacity � -- surface material METAL surface gradient & direction i% SIN k :er—to—center TLOF separation (where wolicable) M/A ting Activation — Aviation Lighting [ Pilot Controlled ting Activation — Wakway Area Lighting f T objects allowed otbove TLOF elevation within FATO safety Area (except maximum 2" height for perimeter lightirg) CONDMONAL PLAN AM,OVAL � POR STATE A61lr"11TAMUMPORT R FT MT FVRPOSU ONLY T AITWVA LIs 3t19MDI.T 1 DCMK CCMW%141WCZ LOCAL cONT AfVW% Au. Aria aFWU MUNT PXqkJ"tEWEM C 3 DIV1SOM OF ALROMAMCS - ��� � �i�_.__ °fC-altrans Aeronautics Approval Contingent DATE — 5 " �' upon Acceptable FAA Airspace Determination * Caltrans Aeronautics Approval Box G H 01 0 10' 20' 40' GRAPHIC SCALE M"W-- TRAiNSM" 3LaFtFA4CE SOUTH1 Drafted: C= Checked: JWW Approved: \Z-Ioj. Code: LD( I ! ! J K Attachment 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NJ SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER W FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov Attached to this memo is a cover letter from Acoustics Group, Inc., who prepared the noise study dated August 24, 2011 for the helistop (Attachment 7 of the staff report) which affirms that the original analysis and conclusions of the noise study remain valid. Attachments: Cover Letter and Noise Study Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Distribution List NO Corzultasit= in Acoustics, Noiot 8a Yibvatioa September 24, 2015 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Helistop Noise Study for Net Development Company in Costa Mesa, CA. Reference: Net Development Company Helistop Project Letter Report, prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc., dated August 24, 2011. Dear Mr. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has reviewed the referenced previous Net Development Company Helistop Project Noise Study dated August 24, 2011. There have been no changes to the proposed flight tracks, operating parameters, and helicopter. Therefore, the results of the referenced noise study are not expected to change and remain valid. Please contact Mr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding this update letter. Sincerely, AcousTICs GROUP, INC. Robert Woo Principal Consultant September 24, 2015 ACOUSTICS CFs r-, F-' i ^i s,:. 2102 Business Center Orive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 - Voice 9I877.595.9989 - Fax . ,TTACHMENT 7 Carla xle �nc3 L.n _�L, k LU' ;;CLC.' NL Ivie dL V, Lbc-zaeiori August 24, 2011 ildr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Nlesa, CA 92820 Cdr o; COG -3 Masa artmenf A -UG .2 .4 20 (-i Subject: Analysis or the Proposed Net Development Company 'Helistop Project in Costa ,".!esa, CA. reference: Net Deve�opment Company -dei;,sto,c Specifications prepared by `-ieliplanners, dated March 15, 20' Dear bir. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has rev�ewed the referenced inr":)rmation and analyzed the noise from the proposed Helistop project. Because of the proximity of the protect to Orange County John Wayne Airpor`. (SVA), 1ne noise produced by he;istop operations is expected to be overshadowed by the existing and future noise of tle airport. This letter report provides a summary of the noise levees expected ro be generated by the ;hel5stop and a comparison with the SNA noise con ours. The project site is loca"ed at 3132 At'Ntay Avenue, in :he City of Costa �\Aesa. As shown in the vicinity map in tine Attachment, the sites locacad nortnwes' of SNA. Landuses to the north, west, and south of the sate are industrial. Tiere are no residantia' recep'ors or other noise sensitive receptors located immeo ate;y adjacan' to the pro-ect site. '-however, Mariner's Christian School is located ac�oroxima'e1y 1,000 feet west of the project site at 300 Fischer Avenue. August 24, 2011 ACOUSTIC$ - - 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 irifne, CA 9261.2 877.395.9988 • Voice ` �� 877.595.9989. Fan Vet De+reloPn,-ent Company HgBs,toP Proj9ct in Costa ,Mesa, CA The Federa Aviation Administra'tion's ntagrated Noise Nlode{ Version 7.0 was used to determine the future noise om t.He project. A Eurocopter =C-135 -ielicopter wi I be used by t+ne applicant at the heilstop. The helisfiop approach tracxs are from the north and soutNvest a 175 degree and 40 degree true headings, respectively. Final approach s;opes for oot,i approach tracks were modeled using default va!ues of 8 to 1. Cepa+suras are on `;He same path, out iAn'n opposite ,Headings. The 'locations o the flight tracks relative to the proiect site are shown in the Attachment. A max`mum of 2 arriva;s and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arriva.s and 3 departures per week are forecasted for the 'nei"stop, Alf operations would occur during ')ne daytime between lam and 7pm. —he arriva.s and departures were assumed 'o be continuous over a 12 montn period and evenly d:sir4bu'ed over 365 days per year. =igura 1 shoves the 65 and 60 CBA Gy_; noise com=rs that vto= be generated by hefistop operations in relation to the existing >and use and SVA noise contours. As shown in 'he figure, the future CiV=- from HeKstop opera°ions would be less ';Han the CN=L generated by aircraft operations a- &NA. Addi'ionaly, neyistoP noise vvou'C be below the City, Coun`y and .'AA noise s'andar;s o` 65 dB CEJ=! for sensitive receptors. At AAariner`s Christian Sciool the extstng CNE'_ 'rom SNA aimort operations is 62 a3 C\Ir`_. Future heiistop operations would �proauce a Grp► -L o" 43.1 dB a: the schcoi, approximately 16 dB below existing airoor noise `evels. Nose generated by future Ine'istop operations would not result in signi`:can' noise imcacts a' the pra'ecr site and ad;acent proper`ies. C0N'C-I .USION Analyses have been conducted to evaluate �-�e f �ture noise evel 'Hai would be generated oy the Net Development Company = eiistop. The ana yses consi :eyed :he Helicopter type, forecasted daily ocerations, approac� e t and departurracks, and default operationa; profiles. Results of L -le `.' modeping indicated t:Hat the future Calc:_ generated by helistop operations �Atould be be<ow exis':ng aircraft noise )eve#s from SNA and Y/culd also comply with all City, County and applicable exterior CirEL standards for noise sensitive receptor locations. suture -, e estop noise lavels would be 43.' dB at Mariner's Christian Schoo, and vvou!d be approximately 16 d3 be ovv existing aircra;z noise levels from SNA. In ad&ion, future ,Helicopter fight °racks vvoud no` pass over tine sc;Hoci site. Noise generated by future:ne";stop operations vvouid not resu,t in significant noise impacts a` t'ne pro'ect site and ad;scent properties. August 24, 2011 ACOUSTICS -' _ :. __ 2102 Susiness Center Curve, Suite 130 Irri✓ e, CA 92612 877.393.9988 - Voice `� � 8 77,395, 9989 - Fax Net Developm-ent Company,tlelistop Project in Costa Mesa, CA Please contact Nlr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding t,)is report. Sincerely, Ac•ousms GROUP, INC. Robert Woo Principal Consuitant August 24, 2011 194 2102 3usiness Cantev Drive, Suits 1'10 Irving, CA 92912 877.595.9988 • Voice 877.595.9989 • Fax i�lst +C-evfliopm-erlt COrnp.a,n/,Lfellstop Project Jr; Costa Masa, CA R 7 ge w �Ntanyer's Christian S C.uOO [ Jr .a Qi►r r�Y r 4 r V j +ti 722] - - �- if �1CyUre ". P'ed C:ed Net Deve.Oqment Company Heflstop '.else "_evels. August 2d, 2011 Af Ck-> 1.1 ST' I C' - - _ ; 2102 3usiness Canter Dri19, Suite 1.10 !rune, CA g3612 877.595.9988 . Voice 377,595.9989 • F3;r 1�5 August 24, 2011 Net Devo.lopmart Company H•9J.rs:too Prozac:; i,nCos#a Masa, CA ATTAC - P =NT Ak 4c oo U S ,r i c s ' , . 2102 Business Cendsr Drive, Suite 130 Iriins, CA 92612 877,595.9988-'/oice 377, S,95.2989 • p agx 1 12 r� '�1 , + 11 r � f � uMfw►wr cwfee► I � � � r'\ "° j A41PV*lf OW*+---rrfr I ' ' 1 y •r 1 � I .r• 'r, y �� � I. { / AIM%041 fKu A9 KI r Si FE LAYOUT '�"'^" HELIS fO( 4ETAIL SOUTHEAST ELEVATION -- - N � • r .� '. .. 1 8UU'll IWFST FI ENATION ^''-'-"�'-'-�'. �.-•,.. ,-> --- - `• THIS SHEET FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND AGENCY APPROVALS ONLY. NO[ FON CONSIRLICIION. J T - f` Vil:Wl17 MAN