The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2 Public HearingTO: FROM: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Planning Commission ITEM NUMBER Director of Community Development JUNE 20, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING K REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 15 -7) AND ASSOCIATED INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSTRUCT A 37,000 SQ. FT. HEALTH CLUB (FITNESS CENTER) AT 12411 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING AREA 12411 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD MARTAIN POTTS RECOMMENDATION: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 16 -13, to adopt Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and approve Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 with Conditions. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ZONE: SITE DESCRIPTION: Assessor's Parcel Number: Lot Area: Project Gross Floor Area: Surrounding Properties: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard COMMERCIAL — GENERAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL 086 - 492 -79 1,544,202 sq. ft. or (35.45 acres) 37,000 sq. ft. (fitness center) North: Residential High Density (RHD -46) South: Residential Medium Density (RMD -18) East: General Commercial West: Residential High Density (RHD -46) Environmental Review: The proposed development of a fitness center constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). Based on the findings of an Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code. LEGAL NOTIFICATION: The legal notice of this hearing was published in the Seal Beach Sun Newspaper on June 9, 2016 and mailed to property owners and occupants within a 500' radius of the subject property on June 9, 2016, with affidavits of publishing and mailing on file. %11!`1411TV MAD. A001AI Reno. Page 2 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard .ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 to construct a single - story private health club comprising 37,000 square feet of floor space. Facilities in the health club would include free weights, circuit training, a pool, a basketball court, separate rooms for aerobics and spinning, a personal training room, men's and women's showers and lockers, a hot yoga studio, a physical therapy room, and a children's area. The project is proposed within the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Bradbury Road in the General Commercial (GC) zoning area. The project site is located within a built -out and completely urbanized area along Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way. The project site currently is used as parking for the Shops at Rossmoor. The existing shopping center is approximately 35.45 acres or 1,544,202 square -feet in gross area and approximately 309,535 square feet of gross building area. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south and west, with commercial uses to the east across Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Municipal Code, Table 11.2.10.010 permits large scale commercial recreation uses subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Large scale recreational uses are health clubs, fitness centers, swimming pools and tennis centers etc. that are larger than 20,000 square feet of building area. The proposed use complies with the General Plan Commercial Land Use designation which encourages commercial areas to provide a broad range of retail and service uses for the community. The applicant submitted an application for the large scale commercial recreation use on October 5, 2015. While the application was under review, the applicant conducted independent meetings to inform the community of the pending application. City staff did not organize or attend the meetings while conducting its impartial review of the application. However, staff did request summaries of the meetings from the applicant so that they could be attached to this report for the Planning Commission's reference. Parking Calculations: The parking calculations for the proposed building and existing building and uses are per Section 11.4.20.015.A.1of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Type of Use Floor Area (SF) Parking Ratio Space per Square Footage Number of Spaces Required Retail 328,753 1/300 1096 Pac Dental 5,000 1/200 25 Restaurant Pads 27,506 1/100 275 In -line Restaurants 12,188 1/100 122 UnoCal Gas Station 2,788 1/250 11 Proposed Health Club 37,000 1/300 123 Total 413,235 1,645 Number of Parking Spaces Provided 1,981 Page 3 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seat Beach Boulevard The existing site configuration provides adequate on -site parking for the current uses and the reconfiguration of the parking lot in the area where fitness center is proposed will continue to allow for a surplus of parking on -site. The subject site will continue to comply with Seal Beach Municipal Code, Section 11.4.20.015, which requires shared parking count with all the current uses and the proposed fitness center to be 1,287 spaces and the site with the reconfiguration is proposed to contain 1,613 parking spaces. This is a surplus of 326 parking spaces. The proposed fitness center is parked at a ratio of 1 parking space per 300 square feet of building area. The gross floor area of the fitness center is 37,000 and will require 370 parking spaces. The area of the shopping center where the proposed building is located is proposed to contain 405 parking spaces. In addition to reconfiguring the parking stalls the project site plan includes 16,795 square feet of ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the health club and within parking lot planters. Architecturally (See attached elevations), the proposed single -story commercial building would consist of a painted concrete tilt -up wall system accented with a prefabricated metal panel shell finish system. The entryway would consist of anodized aluminum. Painted plaster and simulated wood paneling would also be used on the building exterior. The building would have a stepped massing from 24 feet in height at the side and rear to 28 feet at the entryway to 35 feet at the highest point of the parapet holding an illuminated sign on the south side elevation. The molding along the top of the building and arcade features would be finished with decorative cornices. Finally, images portraying individuals engaging in physical fitness activities are proposed to be placed on the rear and side building elevations. The subject site will continue to comply with Seal Beach Municipal Code, Table 11.2.10.015, which provides Development Standards for the General Commercial (GC) zoned area. The applicant requested approval to operate the fitness center which would provide membership -based fitness services, including access to exercise equipment, group fitness classes, and personal fitness training seven days a week. Hours of operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Mitigated Negative Declaration: The City processed a conditional use permit application in conjunction with a request to construct a single -story 37,000 square foot fitness facility at the rear of the Shops at Rossmoor. In addition, the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the size of the project foot print and after the completion of an Initial Study (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.). Staff in conjunction with the environmental consultant firm of MIG, noticed the project with the intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon findings of the Initial Study and that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures to address potential construction noise impacts and long -term traffic generation. A copy of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration is included with this Staff Report. (Attachment #2) Measures to reduce impacts involving noise and traffic will be incorporated into the project conditions of approval. These mitigation measures include the following: Page 4 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard Mitigation Measure N0I -1: The contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities will not be permitted on Sundays or any federal holidays. Mitigation Measure NOI -2: The contractor, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, shall provide all construction vehicles to have mufflers and be maintained in good operating order at all times. No major vehicle repair shall be conducted on the site. Mitigation Measure N0I -3: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the project proponent shall extend the queuing length of the left -turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto westbound Rossmoor Center Way, as recommended in the queuing analysis dated April 2016 for the project traffic impact analysis to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City may determine a fair share payment for completion of such improvements. Accordingly, the City intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 21080 (c) of the Public Resources Code. In addition, a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was required pursuant to the City's policies for new projects. The TIA was thoroughly reviewed and after several revisions the TIA was accepted by the City Engineer/Traffic Engineer as a complete traffic analysis. A copy of the TIA, including an updated Secondary Queuing analysis, is included with this Staff Report (Attachment #3). Subsequently, the project was presented to the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) at their meeting of May 18, 2016 during the required public comment period from April 28, 2016 to May 18, 2016. During the meeting, staff presented the project to the Board and took public testimony. Additionally, the environmental consultant along with the traffic engineer for the developer addressed questions from the public and EQCB. In conclusion of the meeting, the EQCB identified three concerns that the environmental document should address which are as follows: 1. Potential stacking impact along Rossmoor Center Way at the 4 -way stop sign adjacent to Pei -Wei and Panera restaurant via Seal Beach Boulevard access point; 2. Traffic impacts along St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard; and 3. Traffic impacts from Seal Beach Boulevard to project site along travel route extending from St. Cloud to Montecito to Rossmoor Center Way SBMC Section 3.10.005 authorizes the EQCB to make recommendations on environmental matters, but does not allow the Board to make decisions regarding projects. Also, the Zoning Code only provides that the EQCB should receive public comments and provide comments to the approving authority: "F. Public Notice of Environmental Determination. If the director or environmental review coordinator has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, he or she shall prepare a negative declaration for public review in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and applicable state and city environmental review guidelines. If the applicant has agreed to incorporate mitigation measures in order Page 5 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard to reduce environmental impacts to a point of insignificance, the directoror environmental review coordinator shall prepare a mitigated negative declaration for public review. The director or environmental review coordinator shall provide public notice of the proposed environmental determination at the same time and in the same manner required for the underlying permit in accordance with Chapter 5.10: General Procedures. The Environmental Quality Control Board shall conduct a public meeting during the public review period to receive public comments and to provide comments on the draft negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and shall forward all comments to the approving authority for consideration as part of any subsequent public hearings on the draft negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and accompanying discretionary land use entitlement applications." Staff complied with the Seal Beach Municipal Code, regarding the EQCB procedures and conducted a public meeting on April 27'h and May 18`h, 2016. Comments were received by the Board which is included below. Additionally, the responses to the Board comments are included and referenced in the application tables and pages found in the environmental document. 1. Potential stacking impact along Rossmoor Center Way at the 4 -way stop sign adjacent to Pei -Wei and Panera restaurant via Seal Beach Boulevard access point— Page 7, Table A "Site Access Queuing Summary" of the traffic impact analysis (Attachment #3a), the driveway along Rossmoor Center Way via Seal Beach Boulevard is approximately 224 linear feet (throat) which is equivalent to the length of the stacking and cueing lane on Seal Beach Boulevard which means the number of vehicles will not spill onto the public street as analyzed during a 60 minutes peak period on the weekend. As analyzed, the number of vehicles that will travel in this lane from Seal Beach Boulevard will not spill onto the public street as studied during a 60 minute peak period on the weekend and therefore will not create a significant impact. 2. Traffic impacts along St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard— Page 31 Table I "Existing 2014 with full occupancy plus project peak hour intersection level of service summary", Page 40 Table M "Project completion year 2016 with full occupancy plus project peak hour intersection level of service summary and Page 48 Table Q "Future 2035 General Plan buildout with full occupancy plus peak hour intersection level of service ", the intersection was analyzed with the weekday morning peak hour trips for existing and project at 400 vehicles and in the afternoon the peak trips are 363 vehicles, Saturday trips are 333 vehicles with existing and proposed project. St. Cloud vehicle capacity is unlimited since the street is a pass through however the average daily trips on St. Cloud 10,000 vehicles per day and currently operates at LOS B which is an acceptable level per City standards. The additional traffic from the project will not impact the intersection of St. Cloud and Seal Beach Boulevard. According to the Table, the traffic is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level (LOS) C. 3. Traffic impacts from Seal Beach Boulevard to project site along travel route extending from St. Cloud to Montecito to Rossmoor Center Way — Tables 1, J, Page 6 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15-7 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard M, N, Q, R of Pages 31, 32, 40, 41, 48 and 49, analyzed the traffic conditions from Seal Beach Boulevard extending to the project along St Cloud, Montecito and Rossmoor Center Way, and reflect that the project traffic does not create an impact at any study area intersection or roadway segment along these routes. St. Cloud transitions to Montecito and can accommodate on an average daily use at 10,000 vehicles. Page 18 Figure 6 depict less than 1 % of the project trips will be added in the morning and afternoon along an arterial that currently operate at LOS B. The average daily trips from the project distributed along St. Cloud are 1% which is not significant. Therefore the additional daily trips generated form the project will not create an adverse impact. The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 52 trips in the morning and 131 trips in the afternoon per Table E Page 17 of the traffic impact analysis. The Saturday all day trips will total 103. Following an Initial Study and environmental assessment of possible adverse impacts, the project was determined not to have a significant effect on the environment because of the inclusion of certain mitigation measures that lessened potential adverse impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the Planning Division has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration with mitigation measures and monitoring program in accordance with the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Program is recommended as no environmental impacts are foreseen if mitigation measures listed in the attached resolution are implemented. CONCLUSION: After conducting the public hearing and rece the Planning Commission adopt attached I Negative Declaration under CEQA and apr construct and operate a 37,000 square foot 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard within the Coi Prepared by: �� ✓lam Steve Fowler Assistant Planner lic testimony, staff recommends that n No. 16 -13 to adopt the Mitigated nditional Use Permit (CUP 15 -7) to ub at an existing shopping center at General (CG) zoning area. c of Community Development Attachments 6: 1. Resolution No. 16 -13 —A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 to construct and operate a 37,000 square foot health club at an existing shopping center at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard within the Commercial General (CG) zoning area. 2. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration dated April 2016 a. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program b. Responses to Comments 3. Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis dated October 2015. a. Expanded Queuing Assessment dated April 6, 2016. 4. Project Plans: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Dated February 9, 2016 & March 10, 2016 6. Correspondence received after May 18, 2016 Page 7 of 7 Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 16 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15 -7 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 37,000 SQUARE FOOT HEALTH CLUB AT AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AT 12411 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONING AREA. RESOLUTION NO. 16 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15 -7 AND ASSOCIATED INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO CONSTRUCT A 37,000 SQ. FT. HEALTH CLUB (FITNESS CENTER) AT 12411 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING AREA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. Martin Potts of MPA ( "the applicant ") on behalf of the property owner CPT Shops at Rossmoor, LLC John Miller, submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 15 -7. The proposed project includes constructing and operating a 37,000 square foot health club at an existing shopping center, the Shops at Rossmoor, within the Commercial General (CG) zoning area. Section 2. The proposed development of a fitness center constitutes a project that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). Based on the findings of an Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Notice of preparation of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the period of April 28, 2016 to May 18, 2016. The City received comments on the proposed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3. On May 18, 2016, a duly noticed public meeting was conducted by the Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) during the public comment period on the proposed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. The EQCB received public comments on the project, and forwarded those public comments and the EQCB comments to the Planning Commission for consideration as part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the project, in accordance with Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 3.10.005(F). Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 20, 2016 to consider Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 and the associated Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into the record the comments forwarded from the EQCB and all other evidence and testimony provided on this matter. The record of the hearing indicates the following: Page 1 of 6 Resolution 16 -13 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard A. On October 5, 2015, the applicant submitted an application to the Community Development Department for Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 for a proposed project at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, California. B. The subject property is a puzzle piece shaped parcel with a lot area of approximately 1,544,202 sq. ft. or (35.45 acres). The property is approximately 1427 feet wide by 1007 feet deep. The site is surrounded on the north, south and west by residential uses and to the east by commercial uses. C. The subject property is currently developed as a commercial shopping center with approximately 309,535 square feet of gross building area. D. The applicant is requesting to construct and operate a large scale commercial recreational use that is approximately 37,000 square feet in gross floor area. E. The health club is proposed to operate seven days a week. Hours of operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan which encourages architectural diversity in the commercial area (Planning Area 4) while stimulating growth and prosperity of the city and encouraging compatibility between residential and commercial uses. The construction and operation of a health club will provide a use that is customarily associated with commercial centers and near residential uses to encourage and promote recreational facilities. B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with Conditional Use Permit approval and will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The subject site is located within the General Commercial (GC) zone, an area where the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Section 11.2.10.010) allows health club facilities with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. C. The proposed use, as conditioned below, will be located on a site that is physically adequate for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints. The subject site is currently developed as a commercial retail shopping center. The construction of the health club will be located in an area of the center that is currently utilized as a parking lot behind the Sprouts market. This application will allow the site to continue to conform to the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Section 11.2.10.015) which provides Development Standards for the General Commercial (GC) zoned area. The proposed building is consistent with development standards applicable to height, setbacks and parking. Page 2 of 6 Resolution 16 -13 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard D. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use, as conditioned below, will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The subject site is located within the General Commercial zone, which consists of properties developed as commercial retail and office buildings. The proposed building and use with the added conditions as proposed will compliment the surrounding area and operate in a manner conducive with the Municipal Code requirements of noise, screening, glare, and other code requirements. The City has included 3 mitigation measures, one to reduce construction noise between specified times, two to require mufflers on construction equipment and three the project proponent shall extend the queuing length of the left - turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto westbound Rossmoor Center Way, as recommended in the revised queuing analysis dated April 2016. E. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The construction and operation of the health club will increase the landscape area which will soften visual impacts to the residences adjacent to the site by adding landscaping. The subject site will continue to operate as a commercial property, which is consistent with the uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds that In compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for Conditional Use Permit 15- 7 for the construction and operation of a 37,000 square foot health club. The Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that the proposed conditional use permit would not have a significant effect on the environment if subject to the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Planning Commission, in its independent judgment, hereby finds the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP comply with CEQA and hereby adopts them. A copy of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission further approves Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 for the construction and operation of a 37,000 square foot health club, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditional Use Permit 15 -7, subject to the adopted Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, is approved for the construction and operation of a 37,000 square foot health club located at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard. 2. All plan check and future construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Conditional Use Permit 15 -7. All new construction shall comply with all applicable state and local codes. 3. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and Page 3 of 6 Resolution 16 -13 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP if any violation of the approved conditions occurs, or any violation of the Code of the City of Seal Beach occurs. 5. The health club will operate seven days a week. Hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Municipal Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 8. All ground- mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and /or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 9. All roof mounted equipment such as AC condensers shall be screened from view. 10. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 11. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development for the Planning and Engineering Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 12. Any modification or any intensification of the use beyond what is specifically approved by Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to intensification or modification. 13. No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials, shall be permitted without prior City review and approval. 14. The applicant is required to obtain all Building and Safety permits prior to construction or demolition. 12. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed, notarized, and returned to Page 4 of 6 Resolution 16 -13 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard the Community Development Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 13. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. Engineering Department: 1. Applicant shall modify the City approved traffic signal timing at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way to allow for the northbound extended left turn. 2. Applicant shall implement City approved new traffic signal coordination timing and plans for Seal Beach Boulevard from North City Limit to the 1-405 freeway prepared by a California register traffic engineer. 3. Applicant shall monitor for one (1) year the traffic signal timing and coordination along Seal Beach Boulevard from North City Limit to the 1 -405 Freeway and report the City on a monthly basis the conditions prepared by a California register traffic engineer. Any modifications requested by the City Traffic Engineer shall be made by the applicant prepared by a California register traffic engineer. 4. Applicant shall reconstruct the medians along Seal Beach Boulevard between Town Center Drive and Bradbury. The medians shall include City approved landscaping, irrigation and any monuments as required during the plan check. Any irrigation modifications or additions shall be All plans must be submitted and approved. All plans shall be prepared by a California registered engineer. 5. Applicant shall bear 100% of the cost of all above items. 6. Traffic Impact (awaiting specific condition for traffic impact including fees). Mitigation Measures: 1. Mitigation Measure NOI -1: The contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction activities will not be permitted on Sundays Page 5 of 6 Resolution 16 -13 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard or any federal holidays. The applicant shall ensure compliance with this condition. 2. Mitigation Measure NOI -2: The contractor, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, shall provide for all construction vehicles to have mufflers and be maintained in good operating order at all times. No major vehicle repair shall be conducted on the site. The applicant shall ensure compliance with this condition. Mitigation Measure T -1: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall extend the queuing length of the left -turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto westbound Rossmoor Center Way, as recommended in the revised queuing analysis dated April 2016 for the project traffic impact analysis to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City may determine a fair - share payment for completion of such improvements. 4. Per the current 16/17 fee schedule and a gross leasable space of 37,000 square feet, the following are the fees: 1. Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fee: $3.79/sf X 37,OOOsf = $140,230.00 2. Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Application Fee: $0.55/sf X 37,OOOsf = $20,350.00 Total combined fee of $160,580.00. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a meeting thereof held on June 20, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners ATTEST: Jim Basham Planning Commission Secretary Ester Cummings Chairperson Page 6 of 6 Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 2 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Dated April 2016 Separate Bound Copy Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 2A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Rossmoor Health Club Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Rossmoor Health Club Lead Agency: City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Consultant to the City: MIG, Inc. 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 June 2016 JUN 102015 !' vim........... This document is designed for�tile -sided printing - Rossmoor Health Club n J � E U t �a m O Q 0 h C2 � c m O N a g C A 0 O a` C 0 O CL R' C 10 rn C cc U a� N C m go d � to O M w w 6 m m N d C N N U m � E � Q m o E E � C N N to E N N O d d L U y (T L � C 3 _ g C C a N E E v Up � .- a C E � � o m c N � O N C d � N .0 Ol °0° o E a U O c � E Ia d N U N � L O O O d O_ N o m C a C O O O L m E ° T E j tT c to ry U a O c � O_ W d L U L H U N a Q O N U ° o m E N O LU U m N a m :� N U c `p � a N C C Q U Y _m _m a m N N N w ~ U C _ c ° O U d C C d (O C O O d C (Q N t0 a to to N W N N V O N O O O O > N m � N C t0 f1 m c � u c °p n 0 ° m E c o E N Np a 0 9 C d U C N os o z U N N N C EN c o (p C N a U 0 � O a� o O C O C P C a L a a O c L 3 c -ti c c m N N F E ° E E c o rri c m O N d � O C -p m o c E � to aEi N w d w `o E U a > m Q N � L y N N Y N 3 0 N U 0 VJ c U m N ° C T T N c c 5 v r 3 � :- L O O O D E o o p on (U N C p E 3 c E c C a 3 p c m o o E N _N m O m d N o E c o m . @ m a L a N c 'o m o m .O a 0 9 N @ O O .- d c N m a m 0 r aEi -o y m E rn pp O t U tT E o a n E a ° C C C N N C L c O U N p m to o v' m ? E o m L N N c N H a a w E° 0 N O N N c v 0 0 E C a O Y m rri L N (V � N c EN � c � o a � C O t0 U Q 3 � E m m `o ) o E C � O` O y @ ca (O O U C N r w N t0 O N O T E d C U U m a � to = o O tT N U lT c � c N N ° E E a 0 C O N C L O U L U a m N m E D E ° t � aEU i a O a Yl Y O d L U W c C 0 n K N c a m N T ~ C 0 C O c O N o U L .O O 2 U Mu E O U o m c W .2o u d C in— 'gyp 'R m c c O C U O d c c .0 m 2 E U O N fO M � U d U M E 0 Q Q O m n Lij E N "N c O m m m m O O w E UU0 D c O n O m �T d L IQ r N N C G O n m a_ a O n E E 0 0 0 0 EEO a>> a>> a>> 0 0 m- o 0'0 - 0 U d L p cu 0 m C U C N C n N c En c m a M Y�= c U N> C U N m U O r o 3 D C 0 Tnp E E — air N t a o 3 0 Nco 2:E uE(O C O O i� [6 ° i9 s x c E m H m¢ o t o n o �_ C5 U U E — FEE � _ 3 M t m c O T M o O U 'o E a00 0 E o ° o d O M c rL Z fn N a c N o> C-1 O r a> d .- E 0 E U d N N d c N N o a Y _ U L U 'o cE r° o N a a F 0 Q m o C U N G l° CD 1� fD L N � � U `o 3 v c a> 'g Yl Y O d L U W c C 0 n K N c a m N T ~ C 0 C O c O m n W w O 2 U Mu E O U o m c W .2o u d C in— 'gyp 'R m L O C U N O_ O C U O d O 0 4> E m 2 E m 2 E C 2 c n 75 U 0 0 .s Z N "N c O m m m m O O w E UU0 D c O c O O m �T d C _ U 0 0 o %^ m a_ a O n E E 0 0 0 0 EEO a>> a>> a>> 0 0 m- o 0'0 - 0 d L p a O O �N„ C C U C N C n N En c m o > E o `� >. 0 c Y�= c U N> C U N m U O r o 3 r co m s 0 �.t m O Tnp E E — air N a °> Nco 2:E uE(O C O O i� [6 ° o H m¢ o t m n W J � E U w m t Q 0 0 0 0 E m w � o a c c 0 c 0 m z Y U d L U rn c C 0 n m y v _ c F � `o 0 c 0 Im I m m a m v 0 Z 0 U N E 0 U O y c m o p A U d J A C y O] C F rn— c a o` 'm .. c c n o � �d m c F- m C 'q N E o m n n " E at6i E Q p_U °> c m c E E y .o a L � O E E O N c ANN R'O y =+�V 0 o m U c i. rn c y m a� E rC O J O~ D O O � 3: N O' O d N N C p N ] IO 0] U m mU m� m wwa fJn m m a m Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 2B Responses to Comments ,j ,, r'1 J Responses to Comments Rossmoor Health Club Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Rossmoor Health Club Lead Agency: City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Consultant to the City: MIG, Inc. 537 S. Raymond Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 June 9, 2016 JUN 1 0 2016 BY: This document is designed forcdou6le sided printing Rossmoor Health Club 1 Introduction Introduction The City of Seal Beach, as the lead agency, prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the proposed Rossmoor Health Club dated April, 2016. The IS /MND circulated for a 20 -day period concluding on May 18, 2016. During the review period, the City received correspondence from more than 20 individuals and agencies commenting on the environmental effects of the project and the project itself. The City has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Rossmoor Health Club IS /MND and has prepared written responses to these comments. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] §15074[b]), the decision- making body of the lead agency must consider the IS /MND and comments received before approving the project. Although preparation of responses to comments received on an IS /MND is not required by CEQA, responses have been prepared. No significant changes have been made to the information contained in the IS /MND as a result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would require recirculation of the document. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project was posted pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code Section 21092 on April 28, 2016. The 20 -day period of circulation and review of the Initial Study began on April 28, 2016 and ended on May 18, 2016. Public Comments and CEQA Review of Environmental Documents Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance to the public in reviewing CEQA documents. This section is designed not to limit the scope of comments that can be submitted by the public but to focus comments on issues that are substantive to the environmental analysis. Commenting entities should focus on the adequacy of the document in identifying and analyzing impacts to the environment and identify any areas they believe to be inadequate. The guidance indicates that comments should be submitted in a manner that: • Identifies a specific environmental effect • Supports the effect and its significance with substantial evidence Comments should include alternatives or mitigation measures to avoid or reduce identified, specific environmental effects. This section reiterates that the lead agency is bound by "reasonableness" and "good faith" in its analysis and that the lead agency is not required to respond to comments in the IS /MND that do not identify significant environmental issues. Evaluation of Comments Section 15088 et seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on the evaluation and response to comments received during the 20 -day period of circulation and review. A lead agency is required to recirculate the IS /MIND if "significant new information" is introduced during the public comment period. "Significant new information" includes: J 1. New significant impacts Rossmoor Health Club 3 2. Substantial increases in the severity of impacts 3. Feasible alLernaLives or mitigation that would reduce significant impacts 4. Identification of inadequacies in the analysis Recirculation is not required when new information is not significant; this includes: • Revisions that clarify or amplify an adequate analysis • Insignificant modifications (such as spelling and grammar corrections) The Lead Agency has provided responses to comments in Section 2 (Responses to Comments) to the commenting entities identified in Table 1. Because the majority of the comments addressed traffic and parking issues addressed in the IS /MND, the City has prepared master responses. Several of the comments submitted did not address the contents or adequacy of the IS /MND but focused on the merits of the project. No responses to these emails and letters are provided here. Table 1 Comments Received Res onse•ID 'r w ; >Coinmentin A en Date t:. *_ � , 4 "�_: ' CE A.To i Riised:', 2.1 City of Los Alamitos 5/17/16 Traffic A t ( 'Y.^.,� �� < WLI Commenting - -__r' y�.F f sIndmduals _ h • x{ � ice.' �. 4s _ lei ` + M: 2.2 Thomas Cripps Various Traffic 2.3 Karen Rowe and Michael Norton 5/16/16 (phone call to staff) Traffic, Aesthetic 2.4 Mona Patrick 5/16/16 Traffic 2.5 Nancy Holland 5/16/16 Traffic 2.6 Cary Parton 5/18/16 Traffic 2.7 Enea Ostrich 5/17/16 Traffic 2.8 Darryl Lee 5/16/16 Traffic 2.9 Jen and Jason Friedman 5/16/16 Traffic 2.10 Tara & Steve Kellogg 5/18/16 Traffic 2.11 Karen Rowe 2 5/16/16 Traffic 2.12 Stephen Ste onovich 5/16/16 Traffic 2.13 Mary San Paolo 5/17/16 Traffic 2.14 Angie Epstein 5/18/16 Traffic 2.15 Julio and Paloma Ibarra 5/17/16 Traffic 2.16 Gary Brown 5/18/16 Traffic 2.17 Kathy Barnes 5/18/16 Traffic 2.18 Richard Daskam 5/16/16 Traffic 2.19 Christine Ten 5/18/16 Traffic 2.20 Ash Ersheid 5/16/16 Traffic 2.21 Rozanne and Cristian Williams 5/18/16 Traffic Rossmoor Health Club 4 J 2 Responses to Comments Master Response - Traffic Impacts Several comments were received that raised issues relating to project traffic impacts. City guidelines prepared by the City Engineering Division prescribe specific methods for analyzing traffic at roadway facilities and definition on how to calculate and identify project impacts. Specifically, the sections that detail the above guidelines include: • Traffic Impact Study, which provides direction on specific analysis methodologies, required analysis scenarios, and calculation inputs; and • Mitigation Measures, which details discrete thresholds for what qualifies as a traffic impact within the City. Section 4.16 (Transportation and Traffic) of the IS /MND evaluated the environmental impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures based on the conclusions and recommendations from the traffic study referred to here and in the IS /MND as "Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis, LSA, 2015" and the Revised Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Expanded Queuing Assessment, 2016, LSA. Both the traffic and queuing studies were conducted based on the City guidelines and with input from City staff. A scope of work detailing the content, physical scope, and methodology for the traffic study was prepared by LSA, the traffic study consultant, and approved by City staff prior to the start of work on the traffic study. The queuing study was defined and conducted based primarily on City staff input in observance of the sensitive traffic conditions along Rossmoor Center Way between Montecito Drive and Seal Beach Boulevard. In consultation with City staff, the study used an annual growth rate of traffic volume of 0.5% for the baseline and long -term scenarios. The assumption of traffic volume rate growth exceeded that of the annual growth rate 0.2 percent per year based on the growth along Seal Beach Boulevard using the OCTAM traffic model to develop the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout baseline volume. Both studies have been reviewed by City staff and revised based on City input. Communication from City staff found both studies to be acceptable and in conformance with City guidelines and City staff input. Impact and Operations Summary With implementation of extension of the left -turn pocket on Seal Beach Boulevard into the Rossmoor Center, all study area intersections. and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at City- defined levels of acceptability under Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy conditions, without and with the proposed health club, as identified on page 1 of the traffic study and as summarized in Section 4.16 (Transportation and Traffic) "Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Conditions." As identified in Table Q (page 48) of the traffic study, and presented in Table 27 of the Initial Study, the project is anticipated to result in an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) increase that exceeds the City's threshold of significance during the weekday p.m. peak hour at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard /Rossmoor Center Way under Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions. The proposed extension of the left -turn pocket will mitigate this impact to conform to the City's operational standards. All other study area intersections and roadway facilities were found to operate at acceptable City- defined levels for all scenarios. Rossmoor Health Club 5 Traffic Safety The City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines require the identification and analysis of intersections or roadway segments having five or more reported accidents within the most recent 12 -month period. Five accidents is a generalized figure used by City staff as an indication of potential problems that could require improvements. The accident data provided by the City are included in Appendix C, Table C in the traffic study. Five accidents or more have occurred in 2013 in the vicinity of the intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard at the I -405 southbound on /off ramps, Lampson Avenue, and St. Cloud Drive. Table D of the traffic study shows a detailed description of the primary collision factor, type of accident, and number of injuries reported at each of these three locations. The most common factor at the intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard at the I -405 southbound on /off ramps and Seal Beach Boulevard at Lampson Avenue was unsafe speed. The intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and St. Cloud Drive experienced five accidents in 2013 and only four accidents within the first 11 months of 2014. Based on the operational analysis provided in the study, this intersection operates at an acceptable LOS, and no additional improvements are recommended at this time. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor the operation and safety of all intersections and roadway segments within its jurisdiction and make the necessary improvements to reduce potential accidents in the future. Parking The traffic study included a parking study that reviewed parking supply and demand for the proposed health club within the Shops at Rossmoor, and the impact of parking on adjacent residential areas. The proposed project will generate future parking demand while reducing the existing parking supply. As indicated in the parking study, the project will meet parking requirements per the Seal Beach Municipal Code. This conclusion addresses parking demand for the entire Shops at Rossmoor retail center. Although the Shops at Rossmoor retail center is private property, some residents of adjacent condominium communities utilize retail center parking spaces for their vehicles when not conducting business at the retail center. This is an illegal activity, as the parking lot states that the parking lot is private and intended only for tenants and visitors to the Shops at Rossmoor. General Congestion Commenters stated that base on their personal observations, traffic is congested today at the Shops at Rossmoor and will be exacerbated with addition of the proposed project. The traffic study was performed to evaluate concerns about the project's impacts on congestion with City staff input. At the minimum, the study quantified the amount of traffic levels for several scenarios as stated in the IS /MND and the traffic study, including existing conditions and future build out with or without the project. Using data and methods pursuant to City guidelines and in consultation with City staff, the traffic study concluded that all study area intersections and roadway facilities were found to operate at acceptable City- defined levels for all scenarios. The IS /MND also evaluated the project impact on roadways that are part of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The CMP establishes a service goal of LOS E or better on all CMP roadway segments. There are no CMP intersections, roadway segments, or highway segments in close proximity to the project site. None of the traffic study intersections or roadway segments is included in the OCTA CMP. The project would not, therefore, conflict with an applicable congestion management program or level of service standard established by the congestion management agency. Rossmoor Health Club 6 n Mitigation J The single project impact is described on page 58 of the traffic study and summarized in Section 4.16 "On -Site Circulation and Queuing to Enter Site." As identified in Table A (Site Access Queuing Summary) of the queuing study, reproduced in Table 29 of Section 4.16, to mitigate the project's significant impact at Seal Beach Boulevard /Rossmoor Center Way, the queuing study recommended the extension of the northbound left -turn pocket to prevent queuing of vehicles onto the northbound through lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard. The IS /MND incorporated the traffic study recommendation as Mitigation Measure T -1 under Section 4.16 (Transportation and Traffic) and restated in Section 4.0 (Summary of Mitigation Measures). This improvement will lessen the impact of queuing such that the intersection will operate at acceptable City- defined levels. Master Response - Aesthetics The project's aesthetic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Aesthetics, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The analysis was based on review of project maps and drawings, aerial and ground -level photographs of the project area, renderings of the proposed project, and planning documents. The site is most visible from neighboring properties, as well as by pedestrians and motorists along Rossmoor Center Way. East and south of the subject property are retail stores within the Shops at Rossmoor development. West and north are multifamily residential developments. The proposed project has no impact on scenic vistas and resources since there are no scenic vista or scenic resources within the vicinity of the site. The IS /MND assessed the project as a potential source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Nighttime The analysis provides an overview of lighting sources at night during nighttime and their potential impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed project would be required to conform to existing City lighting standards for commercial uses, which requires lighting to be directed downward and away from adjacent properties. Daytime The analysis provides an overview of potential sources of glare at daytime and their potential impacts to the surrounding area. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as glass, highly polished surfaces, and expanses of pavement. The proposed building would have a sand stucco finish, which is not a surface that causes glare. While windows may contribute to glare impacts, they do not compose substantial square footage of the facade and are included as architectural treatments to enhance aesthetic quality. Limited metal accents are proposed on the crown and canopy; however, these areas represent a minor percentage of the square footage of the building. Given the minimal use of glare- inducing materials in the design of the proposed building, reflective glare impacts would be less than significant. Rossmoor Health Club 7 Master Response - Air Quality The IS /MND included a detailed analysis of air quality impacts and concluded that pollutant emissions would not exceed threshold level established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District either during the construction phase of the project or over the long term (due to vehicle and stationary source emissions). 2.1 City of Los Alamitos Summary of comments: The traffic impact assessment should be updated to reflect updated baseline and projected long -term conditions. Comment 2.1.1: Traffic counts should be redone due to possible increased traffic. Los Alamitos notes that the traffic counts were collected in 2014 and are now two years old. Traffic in Orange County has increased over the last two years as the economy has improved. The counts should be redone. Response 2.1.1: The TIA was prepared consistent with the City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. The project application was filed in 2014, and the TIA was initiated at that time. Existing weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid -day peak -hour traffic conditions and LOS were analyzed for existing (2014) conditions. The TIA assumed a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year of traffic volume, which represents a rate more aggressive than the General Plan Buildout Conditions of 0.2 percent per year. Thus, the study accounted for projected volumes for future years. Comment 2.1.2: Project year completion. Is the project still like to be completed in 2016? Should the opening year be 2016 or changed to 2017? Response 2.1.2: At the time of TIA preparation, the completion year was assumed to be 2016. With delays in the hearing process, this schedule is likely to be extended to 2017. However, the TIA projected build -out conditions that capture additional regional growth and therefore provide a future baseline condition against which project impacts can reasonably be assessed. Comment 2.1.3: Identify near -term approved projects. The near -term approved projects should be reviewed and updated in response to feedback from neighboring cities. Response 2.1.3: In the IS /MND under Section 4.16 and p. 24 of the traffic study, the City identified one project that has been approved, a Mobil gas station car wash on the northeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way /Plymouth Drive. Additional traffic from this development was not included in the analysis, as the traffic counts taken in November 2014 have taken into account the existing car wash within the Mobil gas station. Comment 2.1.4: Using 2035 OCTAM long -range model for near -term trip distribution. The model does not represent existing traffic patterns. Los Alamitos wants to see the trip distribution to assess whether it represents existing near -term conditions. Response 2.1.4: The IS /MND appendices included the traffic and queuing analysis. The trip distribution was developed based on guidelines provided by the OCTAM model. Most traffic was assumed to use Seal Beach Boulevard. As noted in the project traffic study, the trips were distributed manually based on a select zone assignment from the OCTAM traffic model. Based on the select zone assignments and further manual refinements, the project traffic was distributed as follows: 43 percent of traffic will travel north along Seal Beach Boulevard, 49 percent will travel Rossmoor Health Club 8 ^ south along Seal Beach Boulevard, of which 3 percent will travel west on the State Route 22 (SR- 22) freeway into Long Beach, 12 percent will travel east along Lampson Avenue, 10 percent northwest along northbound I -405, 15 percent southeast along the I -405 southbound, and the remaining 9 percent would continue to travel south along Seal Beach Boulevard. A total of 8 percent will have destinations within close proximity to the retail site. Figures 6 and 7 of the traffic study illustrates the health club trip assignment for weekday and weekend conditions based on the trip generation and the trip distribution identified above. Figures 9 and 10 of the traffic study illustrates the Unoccupied Space with the Shops at Rossmoor trip assignment for weekday and weekend conditions based on the trip generation and the trip distribution 2.2 Thomas Cripps Mr. Cripps raised several issues. Those related to the IS /MND are addressed in the Master Responses. 2.3 Karen Rowe and Michael Norton - Aesthetic (Glare) The commenter expressed concern regarding the impact of glare and specifically, glare emanating from the new building wall. The concern is that glare will impact surrounding residential properties, with additional glare reflecting from the proposed awnings. The commenter is referred to Master Response - Aesthetics. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.4 Mona Patrick - Traffic (Congestion) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding project traffic impacts. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project, with mitigation, would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.5 Nancy Holland - Traffic (Congestion) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding project traffic impacts. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project, with mitigation, would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Parking (observation, overflow residential) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in J any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any Rossmoor Health Club 9 evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Impacts at Rossmoor Center Way /Seal Beach Boulevard The traffic study, and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts; this included the Rossmoor Center Way /Seal Beach Boulevard intersection. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts at this intersection. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.6 Diana or Cary Parton - Traffic Impacts Comment 2.5.1: Parking - re- evaluate parking model The commenter opines that opening pages that the IS /MDN indicates that only 40 parking spaces will be eliminated by the 53,865 square feet of development, and that using a standard of 9' x 18' for a parking place and an additional 9' x 12' for a drive lane to access the parking place, the math indicates something approaching 200 parking places will be eliminated. "This is not an insignificant error. Based on the parking evaluation on page 86 it appears that there will be instances when the parking demand will exceed the available paces." Response 2.5.1: As shown in the exhibits in the IS /MND, the project includes a comprehensive reconfiguration of the parking lot surrounding the proposed health club. The commercial center as a whole will provide adequate parking to meet requirements of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Comment 2.5.2: Impacts at Seal Beach Blvd /Town Center Drive: The comment is concerned about traffic impact at this intersection Response 2.5.2: Please refer to the master traffic response. Comment 2.5.3: Impacts at crossing Seal Beach Blvd from the Target Center to the Shops at Rossmoor Response 2.5.3: The traffic study, and restated in Section 4.16 of the IS /MND, evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, and included the intersections along Seal Beach Boulevard that provides access between the Target shopping center site and Rossmoor project site: • Seal Beach Boulevard /St. Cloud Drive • Seal Beach Boulevard /Town Center Drive • Seal Beach Boulevard /Rossmoor Center Way The traffic impact analysis included the evaluation of the performance of all approaches of the intersections within the project area including turns. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Rossmoor Health Club 10 2.7 Enea Ostrich (2) -5/17 email - Traffic (Safety) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project, including safety. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.8 Darryl Lee - Traffic (Congestion, Parking) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. The commenter is also referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. `) 2.9 Jen and Jason Friedman - Traffic (Congestion, Safety, Parking) Comment and Response 2.8.1: Congestion (St. Cloud): The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, including the intersection at Seal Beach Blvd. and St. Cloud Drive. Comment and Response 2.8.2: Parking (overall): The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. The project's impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.10 Tara Kellogg - Traffic (Impact) The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.11 Karen Rowe (2) - Traffic (Congestion, Parking) Comment and Response 2.9.1: Congestion: The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts. The project's traffic impacts were J evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under Rossmoor Health Club 11 project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Comment and Response 2.9.2. Parking (overflow): The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. The project's parking impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, 'Transportation and Traffic,' of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.12 Stephen Steponovich - Traffic (Congestion) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.13 Mary San Paolo - (Congestion, Safety, Parking) Congestion (impact on Montecito) The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, and included the intersections on Montecito Road: • Montecito Road /Copa De Oro Drive • Montecito Road /Mainway Drive - Rossmoor Center Way • Montecito Road /Bradbury Road The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Congestion (overall) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 2.14 Angie Epstein - Traffic (Congestion, Safety, Parking) Congestion (impact on Montecito) The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, and included the intersections on Montecito Road: • Montecito Road /Copa De Oro Drive Rossmoor Health Club 12 ^ • Montecito Road /Mainway Drive - Rossmoor Center Way Montecito Road /Bradbury Road The traffic impact analysis included the evaluation of the performance of all approaches of the intersections within the project area including turns. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Congestion (overall) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project. Parking (overall) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking 2.15 Julio and Paloma Ibarra - Traffic Congestion (overall) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project. \ 2.16 Gary Brown - Traffic (Congestion, Safety, Parking) 0 Congestion (turn signal Rossmoor and Seal Beach) The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, including the intersection at Rossmoor Blvd. and Seal Beach. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. J Congestion (left onto St. Cloud). The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, including the intersection at Seal Beach Blvd. and St. Cloud Drive. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. Safety (4 -way at Sprouts, school drop off and pickup times) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project, including safety. The project's traffic impacts were evaluated consistent with the requirements of CEQA in Section 4.16, Transportation and Traffic, of the IS /MND. As described therein, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions. The commenter does not offer any evidence on how the project would result in significant traffic impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. Parking (Not enough parking in the area, overflow residential) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. As noted, the parking analysis indicates that adequate parking will be provided to meet Code requirements. Current illegal parking activities are not a CEQA issue. Rossmoor Health Club 13 2.17 Kathy Barnes — Traffic (Congestion, Safety, Parking) Congestion (turn signal at Rossmoor and Seal Beach) The traffic study and restated in the Section 4.16 of the IS /MND evaluated 15 intersections for traffic impacts, including the intersection at Rossmoor Blvd. and Seal Beach. The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts in this intersection. Parking (Overflow residential) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking. 2.18 Richard Daskam This comment letter raised concerns regarding aesthetics, traffic, and parking, all of which are addressed in the master responses. 2.19 Christine Teng - Traffic (Congestion) Refer to the master responses. 2.20 Ash Ersheid - Traffic (Congestion, Safety, Parking) Transportation (safety) Refer to the master responses. Parking (Overflow residential) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding parking 2.21 Rozanne and Cristian Williams - Traffic (Congestion) The commenter is referred to the Master Response - Traffic Concerns regarding traffic impacts of the project. The issues raised by the commenters below address the merits of the project and do not raise any issues with the environmental analysis provided in the IS /MND. No further response is necessary. Rossmoor Health Club 14 n J 100 ATTACHMENT A Comment Letters Initial Study �J CITY OF itos 3191 Katella Avenue L ®s A I a m Los Alamitos CA -5600 Telephone: (562) 2) 431 43i -3538 FAX, (562) 493-1255 www.cityoflosalamitos.org May 17, 2016 Mr. Jim Basham, Director of Community Development City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 SUBJECT: Rossmoor Health Club — Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Jim, The City of Los Alamitos has completed the review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Rossmoor Health Club at the Shops at Rossmoor_ We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and MND prepared for the Project. We have limited our comments to those issues that are of concern to the City of Los Alamitos. The City of Los Alamitos has two concerns regarding the MND as follows: 1. Age of the study: a) The traffic counts were collected in 2014 and it is now 2 years later. Traffic in Orange County has increased over the last two years as the economy has improved. The counts should be redone. b) Is the project still likely to be completed in 2016? Should the opening year be 2015 or changed to 2017? c) The near -term approved projects should be reviewed and updated in response to feedback from neighboring cities. 2. The near -term trip distribution was based on the long -range 2035 OCTAM model_ Our experience is that the 2035 trip distributions do not necessarily represent existing traffic patterns and may not make sense- Without being able to see the trip distribution, the City of Los Alamitos is unable to assess whether or not it represents existing near -term conditions. We remain ready and willing to discuss these and other impacts with you. Please include us b your project revisions, if any. We would appreciate obtaining a response to all comments_ Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (562) 431- 3538„ Ext. 300. Sincerely, Steven A. Mendoza Development Services Director Mitigation request (Part One — Residential Overflow Parking) Proposed Shops @ Rossmoor LA Fitness sports club (CUP 15 -7) Thomas Cripps, Secretary, Rossmoor Park Owners Association , April 21st., 2016 Introduction: This is on behalf of the residents of Rossmoor Park (RPOA). The Shops at Ross- moor hosted a neighborhood meeting March 101h to update the community on the status of the sitel "of'pioposed H�'d►tK'Clbb,' 13 proposed LA Fitness sports club t (�� ma CUP 15 -7. The project, P op- J posite (Figure 1), was included with the March 10th notice. It y � ( = i i shows the proposed location of „„ $ the health club, located on the _ ; Shops at Rossmoor parking a !, °n area behind Sprouts Farmers - _ ,:;a'• Market. What is not shown is EEP ?° c the location of the Rossmoor > Park Assoc. (RPOA) condomini- - (E)PETSYORT \ ums on the right, across from Rossmoor Center Way. The �wTA following requests for mitiga- i(E) MARSMALLS (E) SPROUTS tion will focus on the major negative impacts upon RPOA. The comments will also refer- - - - - -: ,��i7 ' -`' ence the consequent impacts I upon the neighboring housing - -- residents, also not shown on ` - -- -' the adjacent map. i The urgent need for City staff to review these requests was initiated by statements made j - during the March 10th meet- . ing, indicating expected project - _ Figure 1 - ____ SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD __ -__ approval by the Seal Beach Planning Commission as soon as May, 2016. Martin Potts, JLL -MPA, acting as market lead and oversight for the project City of Seal Beach filing stated their commissioned updated traffic study found no negative impact resulting from the proposed LA Fitness sports club. Page i of 10 These were the findings of the updated traffic study, done by LSA consultants, November, 2015. We contend there are several negative impacts not considered in the traffic study that warrant at least a mitigated negative E.LR study for CUP 15 -7 as defined by CEQA. Further, we understand 2014 amendments to CEQA are now in process of approval, one of which other cri- teria than the level of service (LOS) from a traffic study must be evaluated before a project'no negative' finding can be declared. We request the following concerns be given due considera- tion to justify mitigation measures for the CUP 15 -5, before the anticipated City Planning Com- mission hearing, possibly as early as Monday May 16`h, 2016 at the Seal Beach City Hall. Residential overflow parking: —This is a unique mitigation request for consideration by all con- cerned, resulting from at least four progressive developments, (to be detailed below) since the original construction of Rossmoor Park in 1965. We do not believe the situations to be detailed are covered formally by CEQA or EIR requirements. However, it is a major concern of Rossmoor Park residents and will be for all other surrounding project residents Shops at Rossmoor pa- trons if some form of City initiated mitigation action is not achieved. This is a mitigation request relating to the project's negative impact on off - street parking for Rossmoor Park residents. The negative impact results from several issues beyond direct resolu- tion by Rossmoor Park. It is appreciated the City has limitations to request mitigation measures jrelating to parking on private property by unauthorized users. Consequently, the mitigation will require unique due consideration by both City staff and the present Shops at Rossmoor owners and management. As can be seen in the above map (Figure 2) Rossmoor Park (RPOA) is directly north of the pro- posed health club parking lot location. You will notice several cars are parked south of Ross- moor Center Way and across from RPOA. Some may be cars of shopping patrons and employ- J Page 2 of 10 ees, however must have been identified as 'residential overflow parking' (North Seal Beach Traffic Study, p. 31, 2012). The key first issue to consider is how did these need for residential overflow parking occur by the residents of Rossmoor Park (RPOA)? The present inadequate availability of off street park- ing, is due to no action of the residents but due to subsequent changes in Federal and State laws. Rossmoor Park was originally built in 1969 and designed for apartment use., primarily for seniors. Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc. was declared in February, 1979. Additional under- ground parking was added at that time as required by the City for RPOA to be in compliance with the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC 11.4.20), which establishes required park- ing for all developments within the City. The 1979 RPOA governing documents (CC &Rs) re- quired all residents to be over 18 years of age, consequently the majority of residents were seniors. Many of these elderly residents did not own cars. In addition there was a van shuttle available to take residents to the senior center in Lakewood and other locations. In 1979 there were alternatives transport options and less active need for RPOA auto off site parking The Federal Fair Housing Act 1995 and later California Unruh Civil Rights Act, amended 2000 legislation ended the Rossmoor Park (RPOA) resident restriction to persons over 18 years of age. The increase in younger and family residents has resulted a greater RPOA resident need for parking facilities. Progressively as the RPOA community became younger residents utilized Shops at Rossmoor parking spaces for their vehicles. The prior owners Century national Prop- erties of the shopping center for 10 -15 years did not actively enforce parking restrictions. This may be explained by the different uses and patrons during these years. A Fox movie theatre was located back from Rossmoor Center Way and a Bowling Alley at the present Sprouts Farm- ers Market location. There was also a small shopping mall leading directly onto the same back lot parking area. At weekends there was often major community gatherings near the Rossmoor Pastries store. These shopping center activities and patrons would have been using the same areas as the RPOA 'overflow parking'. The Shops at Rossmoor redevelopment initiated during 2006 removed all the above structures and reconfigured the layout and uses of the shopping center. One significant result has been the present conclusion that the parking area property behind Sprouts is underutilized. Now the decision to place health club in this underutilized area has resulted in the negative impact upon RPOA long term accepted parking use. It is understood the updated November, 2015 traffic study referred to during the March 10th neighborhood meeting will not be available for public review until after City staff has accepted the Shops at Rossmoor project filing and all the related CEQA and EIR evaluations are com- pleted by City staff in preparation for a hearing by the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Consequently, these comments will have no other option than to refer to the 2012 traffic study Page 3 of 10 ra '. J findings as the sole reference available at this time and as a predictor of the 2015 updated traf- fic study results. The parking zone map (figure 3) below was developed by LSA as part of the 2012 traffic study. The map identifies Shops at Rossmoor parking zones 8 and 9 (upper right) impacted by the pro- Montecito Road - Shops at Rossmoor 84 gTecreek 1 Rossmoor i I Villas I IlChateau Regency parking Zones & Supp1y 1035 i lam= SC®.SJ W- .Yb+i`+I,j TWL PVInn2 SWWY i PvN W ...elk WC mq 0B I.BI2 amaM ' r LA Fitness t i'I Rossmoor Park 256 units u nP�_ p R1 11 I, 11 yak L �. F i i Figure 3 - isa posed health club, to be located on zone 9. This is the area as shown on figure 2 where the ma- _ jority of the residential overflow parking takes place. IVlontecito Road I 'A The above map parking numbers are projections for Rossmoor Rossmoor 2035 General Plan build out of the Shops at Rossmoor Chateau 72 units Regency 52 unit (2012 Traffic Study, page 31 and figure 17). This we assume represents the actual parking use for zones 8 Its and 9 after the proposed health club is completed and # — oss- in use by 2017. o� Jmoor ` �A LA Fitness Park The enlargement of figure 3, left opposite shows the 56 anticipated use of 17 parking spaces of parking of zone 13 {'' alunits 8 with a capacity 116 spaces. This could be a possible 4� location for RPOA over flow residential parking if an agreement can be reached with the Shops at Rossmoor owners and management. It is hoped the updated 2015 traffic study will use, at Ea � Z� � =E 1 least for parking zones 8 and 9 the independent data � Figure4 -B 1V = r =� Page 4 of 10 collection company, National Data Surveying Services (NDS), as was done for the 2012 traffic study. The three tiers for Zone 9 parking —the location of the health club are the Total Zone Supply - 325, Peak Weekday Demand -76, and Peak Weekend Demand -124. During the March 10th. Meeting, Marti Potts stated there after health club project reconfiguration of the (Zone 9) parking spaces there would be about 50 less. Thus there would be a future estimated capac- ity of 280 health club parking spaces, far more than the traffic report projected weekend de- mand of 124. The equivalent numbers for Zone 8, including those defined as `retail overflow' are Total Supply -116, Peak Weekday -17, Peak Weekend –13. These data indicate there will be no displaced center patron users from parking zone 9. 'Residential overflow' can be ac- commodated in parking zone 8. It is assumed the zone 8 parking will remain allocated for 'retail overflow' and center employee parking and is not included in the LA Fitness Club lease? Off street parking as covered by the Seal Beach Municipal Codes (SBMC) 11.4.20 and subsec- tions may we believe, may be interpreted by the Planning Commission in some unique way to encourage the Shops at Rossmoor to provide some form of conditional approval for the identi- fied residential overflow parking use of parking zone 8. Although the SBMC 11.5.20.020 Other Parking Reductions refers to property owners options, it suggest there may be a SBMC that can be applied to this off street parking challenge. Perhaps a dual consideration of the RPOA off - street parking needs resulting from Federal and State law changes previously detailed to- gether the updated Shops at Rossmoor 2015 traffic study parking zone needs will provide some path to a solution. We are sure City staff and the Planning Commission expertise and experi- ence will able to identify which codes and how they should be applied to achieve such re- quired off street shared parking. During the March 10th meeting it was stated the Shops at Rossmoor will enforce the center parking restrictions, no matter if the health club project is approved or not. This is under- standable, especially if one is aware or the recent changes in the property ownership and man- agement. Shops at Rossmoor ownership changed in January, 2012 to AEW Capital Manage- ment ,L.P. (AEW). Vestar, became the management of the Shops at Rossmoor as recently as September, 2014. Janice Scott, General Manager of the Shops at Rossmoor stated AEW owns many shopping centers nationwide and is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), investing on behalf of many U.S. 401K business retirement plans. AEW's focus is clearly on insuring all prop- erties owned provide the best return for their investors. Janice Scott and Vestar are also clearly supportive of this objective in their development policies. The prior management company before Vestar, had given parking consideration to RPOA residents in 2013 while repairs were being done to the RPOA underground garage. Thus, such a precedent may discourage the Page 5 of 10 I present management from any such parking consideration resulting from the proposed health club project. It is for this reason we have given a rather long and detailed description of the ori- gins of the need for the 'overflow residential parking' on the Shops at Rossmoor property. We believe all facts considered the situation is unique and challenges the City staff, Planning Com- mission and all others concerned to present a unique and acceptable mitigation solution. Zoning Mao (ROSSMOOR CENTER) hA � .`�reOaFl� +�wo�wr+l y U Rn�sgewea+ta�wsq.�sl U Q wO�It�quMw+WPn�Me,nq Q Q woa pt�YS`+wpn hiw�ml 0 Q w on IRi �1Y wpi 0.wMm1 0 �Rqw peWeYlynunM��a4�+1 i ®woveO�A�wPG�Wwi � Qtf O�ti mnnetiMlrlseYYJUn�M)1 0 �I69yn 9�lecARnl Q m wT�n�Obl ®YlaafmmN /� �Rlr �CwmwtlG - W MIe WnYeby - CE rt}lX4n1 vi�sk.e sam�weF�aiel �M Q Y11o11 �1a�1 - WxlMia:o NmnYl �+A Itttiipah�u W Pm�lv.l Q �+IYaRwnagbLLnl Figure 5 ROSSMOOR TOWNHOUSES LOB ALAMIT03 As can be seen from the above City Zoning Map, without such requested overflow parking con- sideration the subject overflow parking will impact the street parking by the neighboring Ross - moor Regency, Rossmoor Chateau and Bridgecreek Villas condominium residents as well as the single family residences in Rossmoor (RCSD). The above annotated City of Seal Beach Zoning Map (figure 3) expands upon the prior project aerial view (figure 2), and shows both the location of Rossmoor Park (RPOA) in relation to the proposed LA Fitness sports club and the surrounding residential areas. It should be noted the RHD -46 zoning (Residential High Density) for the Rossmoor Park, Rossmoor Regency, Ross - moor Chateau and Bridgecreek Villas at 960 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit is the highest zoned density of residential land use within the City of Seal Beach. Consequently, in relation to the traffic model trip generation and the needs for off street parking will be the highest in the City and are directly in the vicinity of the proposed health club project. Page 6 of 10 Also shown on the zoning map are the four Seal Beach condominium complexes directly adja- cent to the Shops at Rossmoor property. The Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc. (RPOA) 256 con- dominium unit complex with over 600 residents (2010 US Census), located across Rossmoor Center Way and will be directly impacted by the proposed Shops at Rossmoor LA Fitness sports club. Also impacted will be the condominium properties bordering the Shops at Rossmoor parking area site of the proposed sports club. They are the Rossmoor Regency (50 units), Ross- moor Chateau (70 units) and Bridgecreek Villas (72 units). All of these four properties face onto Montecito Road, housing over 1,000 City of Seal Beach residents directly impacted by the proposed sports club. Consideration of impacted areas beyond the incorporated boundary of the City of Seal Beach: Page 7 of 10 �y�i► OlN wM� NM •r..Yr ..0 r.rr M r�➢r, C1 4s�4w N r ..N Y N vqb C\ Y o.. r. nor .. .... �. 61r rlWll o.wa. w eTwr NN urr N WYr11s N b..rOrr N ..r NNu grew.. ... ..Y r NYCS M Yre.. N a u rrr.r NuY v N larrr .. Dr rYN+�O N.NN r.Wr WG Oi( r N W yO....NNN (r Vi1N. lY wwdw IN» (tl YOr N fNwY.r N r...w�r orrr Y i.O► ..__.N wrr.. eauN Yr�Cw� N Y » Nip Mr \N •(r OAS M ryw \Y N b.�...._.wu »60Y1Y NDIN rsrrr NN �uyr ♦rNY \» Y �r..r Il r1 t�wMOM N The Shops at Ross- moor, where the pro- posed health club is to be located is located in the extreme northern area of the City of Seal Beach, which was origi- nally the Rossmoor Business Center and part of the Rossmoor Community as con- ceived by Ross Cortese in the 1950s. Location of the non- city residential areas probably negatively impacted the pro- posed CUP 15 -7 project are shown on the City of Seal Beach Zoning Map below. The im- pacted areas requested to be within the study area are Rossmoor Community Services District (RCSD) and Rossmoor Townhouses, City Los Alamitos. The large attendance of Rossmoor CSD residents at the January 27th. and March 10th Shops at Rossmoor hosted neighborhood meetings is clear evidence of the RCSD residents concern and awareness of the potential negative impact of the proposed sports club. These will probably be the residents of the single family units along St Cloud and Montecito Roads, and those Rossmoor community roads branching off from Montecito Road. Field observations and air photos suggest a potential 200 RCSD housing units could be impacted by the proposed sports club project. In addition, potentially impacted are the Rossmoor Townhomes, Los Alamitos (184 units) facing onto Montecito Road and Bradbury. The 2012 traffic study and presumably the updated 2015 study have only minimal references to Los Alamitos and espe- cially the RCSD impacts. The map (Figure 6) of the Rossmoor Homeowners Assoc. (RHA) clearly shows how the 1967 incorporated area of Seal Beach, containing the Shops at Rossmoor is a unique land intrusion into the domain of the Rossmoor Community. Thus, a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts of CUP 15 -7 project as we understand is per - mitted by CEQA, will include consideration of the project surrounding areas outside of the im- mediate City of Seal Beach jurisdiction. The overflow residential parking mitigation request detailed earlier clearly indicates a potential permanent negative impact upon the surrounding communities without a duly considered requested mitigation. Without inclusion of the non - project area residents in the E.I.R evaluation the proposed LA Fitness sports club location will result an unavoidable permanent overflow of disruptive auto parking to the project adjacent residents of Rossmoor CSD and Los Alamitos. This will be a result of the severe impact on Rossmoor Park. The present identified residential overflow parking' will be forced permanently onto Montecito Road and the neighboring streets of the Rossmoor CSD and Los Alamitos. The potential conflict between community residents due to a lack of consideration by the Shops at Rossmoor will not be a positive encourage for potential local residents of the center or the LA Fitness sports club. None of the issues referenced above are duly considered by the'no project negative impact' statement by Marti Potts, JILL -PDS, based on their traffic modeled Level of Service (LOS) findings. J Page 8 of 10 Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc. Condominium Plan— February, 21st, 1979 Below (Figure 7), is shown the present carport off street parking availability at Rossmoor Park. Figure 7 -- L B t' Rossmoor Park Condominium Plan, Tract 12095, Lot 1. Map Book 444, pages 49 -50, Recorded in book 13040 -2 -21 -1959 cur ' L .� �i ur u. ��LI tiat i.. CAN L� � Yai ,. H SR J Q lIq Auto Exit Rossmoor Center Way Rossmoor Park is in compliance with the off site parking requirements of the Seal Beach Mu- nicipal Code at the time of the February, 1979 conversion to condominiums. The above is provided to aid City staff evaluate the present Rossmoor Park offsite parking demand. At present there are 390 carports serving the 256 units with and population of 650 (2010 US Census). 260 of these carports use the auto exit onto Rossmoor Center Way, close to the rear of Sprouts Farmers Market, Shops at Rossmoor. The same 260 carports use the entrance off of Montecito Road, at the now illegal offset intersection with Rossmoor Park Way. Present SBMC requires 2 parking spaces per unit plus one visitor space per seven units. That would be a to- Page 9 of 10 r• F_ cur ' L .� �i ur u. ��LI tiat i.. CAN L� � Yai ,. H SR J Q lIq Auto Exit Rossmoor Center Way Rossmoor Park is in compliance with the off site parking requirements of the Seal Beach Mu- nicipal Code at the time of the February, 1979 conversion to condominiums. The above is provided to aid City staff evaluate the present Rossmoor Park offsite parking demand. At present there are 390 carports serving the 256 units with and population of 650 (2010 US Census). 260 of these carports use the auto exit onto Rossmoor Center Way, close to the rear of Sprouts Farmers Market, Shops at Rossmoor. The same 260 carports use the entrance off of Montecito Road, at the now illegal offset intersection with Rossmoor Park Way. Present SBMC requires 2 parking spaces per unit plus one visitor space per seven units. That would be a to- Page 9 of 10 tal of 549 spaces for Rossmoor Park. We help these numbers will help City staff evaluation of the critical need for residential overflow parking by the residents of Rossmoor Park. Part Two of RPOA's mitigation address to be provided by April 25th are as follows: Request additional intersection study ('15') on Rossmoor Center Way. No reference to this offset intersection exit from Rossmoor Park Community in the 2012 study intersec- tion, between 12 and 13. Request on Rossmoor Center Way additional pedestrian crossing, on west side of above requested intersection '15'. The slowing off traffic in front of RPOA auto exit wit cross- ing will improve safety for both major vehicle traffic exiting and major pedestrian traf- fic now crossing at this location. Request traffic study feasibility of converting Rossmoor Center Way to a one way street. This restriction would be between intersection 12 (Sprouts) and offset intersection 10 (Montecito Road). Preferred one way traffic being from east to west, acknowledging some re- routing of traffic flows. This again as in item 3 above will improve both vehicle safety and pedestrian traffic. Ensure proposed external wall LA Fitness graphics are not distracting: One graphic will be directly opposite proposed offset intersection 15 auto exit from RPOA and the other two graphics facing Montecito Rd. housing. The purpose of the graphics are to attract, we hope they will not distract. .J Page 10 of 10 Mitigation Requests - Part Two- Rossmoor Center Way and LA Fitness Exterior Graphics. Proposed Shops at Rossmoor LA Fitness sports club (CUP 15 -7) Thomas Cripps, Secretary, Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc., (RPOA) May 2 "d,2016 The following three initial mitigation requests relate to traffic flow along Ross - moor Center Way, and the anticipated negative impacts. The statements below will build upon and refer to the statements previously stated in Part One of Ross - moor Park Owners Assoc. (RPOA) mitigation request. The document presented the unique location issues relating to the present 'residential overflow parking' primarily in the area to be occupied by the Shops at Rossmoor sports club. Mitigation request 2: An additional intersection study ('15') to be included in the 2016 updated traffic study. The requested intersection will be referred to as '15' consistent with the 2012 North Seal Beach Traffic study. This is primarily an issue of health and safety as covered by CEQA and provides the basis for the fol- lowing two mitigation requests. The aerial below (Fig. 8) is from Fig. 3 of the 2012 traffic study and the requested additional intersection study is between nos. 13 and 12 on East -West (see figure 9) Rossmoor Center Way, from Seal Beach Blvd. to Montecito Road. The re- Page 1 of 10 (-1 J quested intersection is about the same distance apart as intersections 4 and 8 (Fig. 81 on St. Cloud Avenue. Drivees $xif view from Rossmo 0 u intersection 15. Park Auto Gate 1 r% aub It will be noticed in the aerial oppo- site (Figure 9), the requested inter- section traffic onto Rossmoor Center way is offset. This is a similar situa- tion to study intersection 10. The proposed sports club increased traf- fic flows onto Rossmoor Center Way will emphasize the risks related to what is now a relative unauthorized offset intersection. Below (Figure 10) is the view of the requested offset study intersection (15) as seen by drivers exiting from Rossmoor Park. Directly across Ross- moor Center Way is the north side of Sprouts Farmers Market. To the 1 east of that, the area seen with parked cars is the location of the proposed LA Fitness sports club. Just below that you can see the exit onto Rossmoor Center Way that will be between Sprouts and the sports club. These are the compo- nents'streets' entering the Ross- moor Center Way requested offset Even though the north autos exiting RPOA and south health club exiting traffic are not on identified traffic model links, counts can be taken at these entry points to indicate the potential hazards and need for mitigation. The issue is not the level Page 2 of 10 of service but the ongoing hazard on entering onto Rossmoor Center Way in rela- tion to the close proximity to study intersection 13 (Sprouts /Pei Wei). During the March 10th neighborhood Shops at Rossmoor presentation Nick Rob- erts, Real Estate manager for the LA Fitness sports club gave some estimates of patron use of the health club facility. He stated between 7 am -9 am there will be an estimated 52 patrons, and between 4 pm -6 pm 131 patrons. Many of these will exit north onto Rossmoor Center Way either by the proposed intersection 15 or 2012 traffic study intersection 12 (Figure 9). Most Rossmoor Park residents can only exit via auto gate number one (Figure 10) ` RoismoorPerkCarportsto Auto Gate ?No.l ::1 onto Rossmoor Center Way. This exit being the northern arm of the proposed intersection 15. As shown in part one (Figure 7) there are 260 carports users for this exit onto the intersection 15. One row of these off street carports is shown opposite (Figure 11). It would be reasonable to assume the number of vehicles entering onto Rossmoor Center Way at Intersection 15 will be equal to those coming from the LA Fitness sports club. Since the 2012 traffic study justified intersection 12 for traffic from the Shops at Rossmoor parking zones 8 and 9 (Figure 8), surely the above future greater traffic flows justify the inclusion of the requested study intersection 15. Drivers exiting onto Rossmoor Cen- ter Way and especially those coming from intersection 13 (Pei Wei/ Sprouts), often are not aware of the multiple close Rossmoor Park auto exit shown opposite (Fig. 12). Often traffic going south by Pei Wei, turn- ing right onto Rossmoor Center Page 3 of 10 } Way are obscured by the store front landscaping and unseen by RPOA exiting drivers and certainly not expected by Shops at Rossmoor patrons. The aerial be- low (Fig. 13) shows the close proximity of Pei Way and Rossmoor Park auto and pedestrian exit onto Rossmoor Center Way. The supply trucks and health club pa- trons entering northwards onto intersection 15 on the east side of the health club onto Rossmoor Center Way will face similar risks of an accident. Equivalent data for intersection 15 as provided in the 2012 traffic study intersec- tion studies collected by National Data Research will contribute to evaluating the following two traffic related mitigation requests. Mitigation Request No. 3: Convert Rossmoor Center Way to a (partial) one way street. Limiting traffic flow to one way along Rossmoor Center Way it is believed will be a major step towards improving both auto and pedestrian traffic safety. It is acknowledged whichever one way designation is selected may require changes in the traffic flows around the proposed health club. The preferred direction is going eastwards from intersection 10 (Montecito Road /Main Street) to intersection 13 (Sprouts /Pei Wei). Refer to prior Fig. 8 or the Ys on the above (Figure 13). This would enable direct auto access to the Shops at Rossmoor by residents of condominiums along Montecito Road and the very important Rossmoor CSD patrons. Page 4 of 10 Significantly, the blind right hand exit turn at Pei Wei onto Rossmoor Center Way would be eliminated. In addition the roadside dining area of Pei Wei patrons would be more congenial with traffic limited at intersection 13 to the east bound lane, one street lane over from the present traffic flow. A second option will not be to consider the same one way eastward traffic flow all along Rossmoor Center Way between intersections 10 and 13. This would permit only right turn exits for traffic entering intersection 12 from the north side of the proposed health club. A perhaps unique and more appropriate option we attempt to show above (Figure 14). This will be to have the eastward bound one way direction on Rossmoor Center Way limited to be just along the road between study intersections 12 and 13, as we try to show above. Please give this option due consideration since it has many benefits to all concerned. The request is based on actual observations over past 25 years of residence at Rossmoor Park. To repeat this option requests the one way section of Rossmoor Center Way be only between study intersection 12 (exit /entrance) and 13 (Pei Wei /Sprouts). It is admittedly unique but provides several benefits. Traffic in- cluding delivery vehicles will have the option to enter /leave from Montecito Page 5 of 10 Road and so avoid the congested intersection 13 (Pei Wei /Sprouts). The re- quested mitigation especially will considerably decrease the present and future traffic related hazards and accident potentials for both autos and pedestrians as described above. It should also be noted as observed earlier in part one, the Seal Beach City RHD -46 zoning for Rossmoor Park and neighboring condominiums (Part One , page ) is the highest residential zoning for any area in Seal Beach. Consequently the resulting generation of auto and pedestrian traffic will be higher than at any other city loca- tion. This observation acknowledged in the 2012 traffic study and is both relevant to this and the following mitigation requests. Mitigation Request No. 4: Additional Pedestrian Crossing on Rossmoor Center Way, to be located west of RPOA main auto exit gate number 1 (Figure 15, Al be- low), and behind the street facing northwest corner of the proposed LA Fitness sports club. There is also a pedestrian exit /entrance gate next to auto gate 1 (P1 1 below). This is the carport shadow in the aerial (Figure 15). The proposed site of J the pedestrian crossing (Ped Xing below) would be just above the present grass landscaping which would be northwest of the proposed health club site. The exist- ing crossing shown to the right of grass landscaping, forms part of the assumed J Page 6 of 10 pedestrian network access to both the Shops at Rossmoor and the proposed health club patrons. The figure 16 above shows at least one typical pedestrian crossing Rossmoor Cen- ter Way, close to the proposed location of the requested crossing. You may also notice the pedestrian crossing sign just behind the pedestrian. There is another pedestrian sign just visible by the auto farther down the street. This car is about the location of an existing pedestrian crossing at the location of the 2012 intersec- tion study site 12. There are three pedestrian gates from Rossmoor Park providing ingress /egress from the property as shown by 'Pl'; P2', and 'P3' above. A stop sign prior to the proposed pedestrian crossing will have the dual benefit of alerting and slowing traffic as it passes in front of auto gate 1 exit. It would also obviously provide warning and protection for the expected increase of pedestri- ans crossing Rossmoor Center Way — probably many to /from the Shops at Ross- moor to /from the LA Fitness sports club. The above paragraph assumes two way traffic on Rossmoor Center Way. If the requested one way mitigation is initiated, added auto and pedestrian safety would be enabled. Perhaps the then unused westward bound lane adjacent to Pei Wei could then in part be converted to a pedestrian walk way. Several poten- tial changes in the possible landscaping would then be feasible to benefit all con- cerned. Page 7 of 10 n It should be noted from the mitigation request in part one, there will be a poten- tial of at least 50 displaced overflow residential parking spot pedestrian users en- J tering /leaving Rossmoor Park by the pedestrian gates to access their parking. In addition there are many pedestrian patrons from Rossmoor Park who will use pedestrian gate 1 to be patrons of the Shops at Rossmoor and perhaps the pro- posed LA Fitness sports club. Most will of the 650 residents (US Census 2010) who decide on such a pedestrian crossing of Rossmoor Center Way to access the Shops at Rossmoor will benefit from the safety offered by the proposed cross- walk mitigation. Mitigation request No. 5: Ensure LA Fitness sports club graphics are not dis- tracting. Three graphics shown in the upper half of figure 15 opposite, will face directly onto the rear views from Rossmoor Regency and Rossmoor Chateau con- dominium complexes. One graphic (image bottom left, figure 15 below), on the external northwest corner of the health club will be facing across Rossmoor Cen- ter Way viewable by adjacent building Rossmoor Park second floor level residents and may be distracting for drivers using the main auto exit gate No. 1. The view below (Figure 17) shows the relative locations of Rossmoor Park, Rossmoor Re- gency and Rossmoor Chateau condominium units and the RPOA auto gate exit Page 8 of 10 h agery m2016 Google. Map dale 02016 Google 100 fl L no. 1. There is a concern second and third floor residents of these buildings and the exiting RPOA drivers will be distracted by the health club graphics. During the March 20th presentation, the exterior elevations (Figure 18 below) of the LA Fitness sports club were shown. The upper half of the figure shows a sam- j 1 :ar Back North sip shown below ROR+ Proposed LA Fitness Sports Club Exterior Elevations W_,C, � West side— facing Rossmoor Regent and Chateau condominiums .u, epep.�mw�.oe.ek3.. cr�eie.. oum wac �.y., eB con �.oi m eanco� o s- / KI North side — facing Rossmoor Center Way & Rossmoor Park condomin ac: Front ple of the exterior 24' high parapet with mounted panel sports graphics. These will be facing the residents of the Rossmoor Regency and Chateau condomini- ums. (Figure 17). Figure 18 (lower half), shows the north RPOA facing 'Wall Panel Sports Graph in Flex Face Frame with surface mounted illumination'. We are concerned these images may be unduly distracting and so we requested Nick Roberts, LA Fitness Real Estate Manager for samples of the project images as shown above. Nick's response of April 4th. is given below: • As mentioned in the March 10 meeting, both the exterior and interior of the club will be LA Fitness' new prototype design, which will differ in most respects from their location in Garden Grove. • The specific graphic panels have not been chosen at this juncture. Please refer to the exte- rior elevations from the meeting for general idea of what they will be. Please note that everything LA Fitness does will be tasteful with the goal of being to attract potential mem- Page 9 of 10 rl • As for as the activities facilities, they will be similar to the Garden Grove location with the exception of the racquetball which is not included in the initial design. The above (Figure 19) gives some concept of the future LA Fitness sports club, imagine Rossmoor Center Way being behind the club and the Rossmoor Park to the left and Rossmoor Regency bottom left. The Shops at Rossmoor Sprouts etc. being top right. The 'Kids Korner' and adjacent 44' long basketball court will be bottom left corner of club with the 25 yard swimming lap pool being on the bot- tom right club corner. All give some concept of anticipated patrons. Consequently in respect of Nick's comment we request City staff review when fi- nalized the 'exterior elevations' graphics to ensure they will not have any undue distraction for adjacent residents and drivers as previously described. Finally, thank you to all concerned who have read through all ten pages of this Part Two of mitigation requests. Further, even more appreciation to all who have also read through the original ten pages of Part One of the combined mitigation request document. Far, far more than ever anticipated but we hope all will serve as a future reference for issues that may arise concerning the CEQA or EIR proc- ess for City of Seal Beach CUP 15.7 Planning Commission hearing May 20th. J 2016. Page 10 of 10 Rossmoor Health Club, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 15 -7 Updated requests for mitigation May 18th, 2016 -05 -17 By Thomas Cripps, Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc. (RPOA) board and community. The focus of these statements is an update of comments previously submitted to the City Seal Beach Community Development, April 2155 and May 2nd requesting mitigation of the health club project impacts on the Rossmoor Center Way, between the Montecito Road /Main street intersection (10) and the internal driveway/ Rossmoor Center Way intersection (14). City of Seal Beach Public Review process for CUP 15 -7. It is with hesitation these comments are offered because events of the past weeks suggest the City of Seal Beach has minimized the means and opportunity for public comment relating to CUP 15 -7. It was by chance late Thursday evening May 12th, RPOA's deputy property manager Deborah Kohler, forwarded an e-mail she had received from Steve Fowler notifying her of the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) special meeting May 18th. There will be an oral communication option for the public during this meeting to comment on CUP 15 -7. Without such a forwarded e-mail notice none of the Seal Beach residents most directly impacted by the health club would have any awareness of the May 18th opportunity for public comment. The City may claim at least RPOA was notified, but we ask why contact RPOA's hired community manager rather than I, as a member of the Board who has been in contact with Steve Fowler in person and by e -mail since the first Shops @ Rossmoor Neighborhood meeting January 28th, 2016. Further, April 22nd was the last day I spoke with Steve in person, I was concerned as to when the Planning Commission would be meeting, Steve indicated not before June 20th. However, Steve never mentioned the EQCB meeting that would take place April 27th with CUP 15 -7 as one of the agenda items and open for public comment. The 20 day CUP 15 -7 public review period started the day after the EQCB meeting. We believe Steve acted as directed by his superiors. It is difficult to believe one so involved in the EQCB and Planning Commission meetings did not have awareness of a meeting that was already scheduled. On the evening of Saturday, April 30th RPOA residents and presume adjacent neighbors received the mailed notification of the 20 day public review period for CUP 15 -7, which had started April 28th. Hard copies of the initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) were available for reading during the limited three Seal Beach Library hours or at the City. I asked for a digital copy downloadable from the City web site to be made available. An e -mail response indicated a hard copy was available from the City for $42.50. The only reasonable Page 1 of 3 option was to make our own copies 15 cents a page. The final appendix and attachments were hole punched up side down! Please note the April 27th, Item 2 of the EQCB agenda. It C) tates during the 20 day review period the EQCB members will be provided with a CD containing the IS /MND for their comments. Why is the public denied such a media option. Omissions from the IS /MND CUP 15 -7 public review document: 1. Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis, LSA, 2015 The above much requested referenced and requested traffic analysis is identified in Appendix B of the IS /MND, page 100. The public since January has been told the above traffic study would be available as soon as the initial study was finalized and available for public review. No such separate document has been made available for public review. Instead Appendix B Traffic analysis and queuing analysis provides series of detailed tables (March 24th -25th, 2016) using data from the 2015 traffic study. Consequently my prior 2012 traffic study comments of April 21" and May 2nd still have relevance, referencing the only public non - specialized traffic analysis relating to the CUP 15 -7 health club project (Seal Beach Blvd. Traffic Analysis, LSA, Oct. 2012). Please refer to the study intersection graphic page 1 of my May 2 'd comments. You will note all intersections numbers are the same except for an additional '13' on Rossmoor Center Way, I requested it be added and identified it provisionally as '15' on page 2 of my comments. Internal driveway intersections 13 and 14 are now numbered 14 and 15. 2. Rossmoor Park auto and pedestrian use omitted from 2015 traffic study: a) Offset intersection 13 (project driveway /Rossmoor Center Way: As stated in my April 215t comments Rossmoor Park is directly north of the health club across Rossmoor Center Way. The only exit for the 260 carports from the complex is onto Rossmoor Center Way, just east of the (east side) project driveway intersection 13 identified in the IS /MND document. Thus, study intersection 13 should defined as an offset intersection (May 2"d Comments, Page 2, Fig. 10) to include the exiting traffic from Rossmoor Park. b) Off Set intersection 10 (Montecito /Main): Main is actually offset to the north of and significantly directly opposite the only entrance for the 260 carports identified above. (April 215f Comments, Page 9, Figure 7). This offset constitutes a very risky situation J for autos entering Rossmoor Park directly eastwards from Main, facing autos coming westwards from Rossmoor Center, uncertainty in the turn or forward for a collision. Page 2 of 3 It is understood in conventional transportation planning trip generation is generally considered having the same point of ingress /egress from the transportation analysis zone (TAZ). However, skilled micro modeling will allow for the defined entrance and exit for Rossmoor Park as requested allocating the OCTAM trips at intersections 10 and 13 and suggested. This will give a more balanced understanding of the omitted Rossmoor Park traffic flows and appreciation for the following mitigation requests. c) Convert Rossmoor Center Way between study intersections 10 and 14 to a way one street: The direction would be from Montecito /Main (10) to Rossmoor Center Way /interior driveway (14). My prior comment of May 2nd, (Pages 4 -5, Figures 13 & 14) give the basic documentation. As stated this change would serve many health and safety related functions. First the potential collision of west bound traffic Montecito /Main and Rossmoor Park entrance. Second eastward bound traffic will clarify auto movements at intersections 12, 13, and 14. The potential distraction of health club external wall graphics (Page 2, Figure 10) for autos exiting Rossmoor Park will be minimized as will need to view oncoming traffic from two directions. Significantly, the main congested intersection 14 by Pei Wei and Sprouts will be made far easier to navigate without any westward bound through traffic. Street side dining at Pei Wei will be a pleasanter experience. This one way direction will support patrons for the Shops at Rossmoor and the health club and no undue re- routing for deliver services. d) Additional pedestrian crossing west of the project driveway /Rossmoor Center Way (13): With or preferred with the above one way mitigation, a pedestrian crossing is warranted (May 2nd. Comments, Pages 6 -8). There are over 650 residents (US Census 2010), living in Rossmoor Park, many whom also use three pedestrian gateways facing onto Rossmoor Center Way (Page 7, Figure 16). Many local residents in addition to the extra health club patrons will be using these sidewalks and the slowing of the traffic for a sidewalk will be benefit all concerned. e) "Overflow Residential Parking ": This has been detailed at length in my comments of April 215'. Part One. Exhibit 8, page 84 of IS /MND indicates the reconfigured parking zones 1 and 2 (health club) will have adequate capacity for all patrons. Again, RPOA respectfully requests the City initiate from the owners and management of the Shops at Rossmoor a pragmatic agreement for the unauthorized residential parking. It should be noted City action enabled the present situation to develop by approving such a high density residential development as part of the 1965 annexation of the Rossmoor Business Center, an integral part of the Rossmoor CSD. Page 3 of 3 May 16, 2016 Good Afternoon Laura, We had two callers who wanted to voice their opinions over the phone: Michael Norton • Concerned over traffic on Rossmoor Center Way. Current conditions make it difficult to bike on Rossmoor Center Way. • Rossmoor Park Association has a driveway that exits onto Rossmoor Center Way that becomes congested. • He has seen parking congestion at other centers with a health club and is concerned about parking at this center. • Concerned that lighting for the new building wall cause glare onto surrounding residential properties. • Concerned that proposed awnings will reflect light and cause additional glare. Karen Rowe • Strongly opposed to project due to concerns over congestion_ J From: Monasrealestate(d?aol.com [ mailto :monasrealestate(a)_aol.coml Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 8:53 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Rossmoor health club I will be unable to attend the meeting but I want to let you know we have 4 in our home that oppose the health club. The traffic that has been created in Rossmoor with all of the shopping, grocery and restaurants is already bad. Los At blvd /Seal Beach blvd is terrible. Please represent the community and vote no! Thanks, Mona Patrick 3091 St Albans Dr May 16, 2016 Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner 211 Eighth Street Community Development Department Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 431 -2527, ext. 1324 Dear Crystal, I have lived at 12300 Montecito Rd., #30, Seal Beach, CA 90740 for the past 28 years. Previously I lived in the Rossmoor homes for many years. I am well acquainted with the community and have found it a great place to live. Some years back the shopping center known as The Shops of Rossmoor was developed and it is a great asset to our community. i do most of my shopping at the Shops of Rossmoor. The shopping center however was not planned well and lacks necessary parking at certain times. My condominium directly faces Sprouts parking lot and 1 can see the proposed construction site very well from all of my windows and balconies. The lot is always about half full of cars from various uses by the people who work in the stores and the customers for the stores. The first 4 -5 rows on the north side and the south side of this site are full of cars most of the time. There are also some people that live in the over 650 condominiums on Montecito Rd that do not have ample parking spaces in their condominium project. The project where I live does have ample parking and was built and approved by the City with ample parking. Some buildings were approved without ample parking and their residents park in the lot where the proposed Health club would be built. We do not object to the building, but to the traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, and degradation of our quality of life. Simply put this will not be an asset to the community. It will create detrimental congestion and traffic problems, and less people will want to shop at the Shops of Rossmoor because of the total lack of available parking. Rossmoor Center Way, is already a problems and hard to enter from Seal Beach Blvd. Extending the Southbond lane and adjusting the, signal lights will not solve the problem. First of all there are also many people entering Rossmoor Center Way from the North. When the signal allows people to enter from the South, cars start entering from the North and the street gets quickly filled with cars that are stopped at the 4 way stop sign at Sprouts and Pei Wei. People coming across Seal Beach Blvd. from Old JRanch Homes get a green light but cannot enter Rossmoor Center way to shop in the center because the entire lane is filled with cars. They have a green light but cannot enter Rossmoor Center Way. This problem only gets worse from September to January when everyone starts doing their back to school and holiday shopping. The people who live and own property on Montecito Rd, Seal Beach, CA will really have a big problem due to the lack of parking which was previously available for many years. Now these people who don't have adequate parking in their Condominium project will start parking all over and on Montecito Rd, in front of other Condominiums causing a lack of available parking for emergency vechicles which will have to park in the traffic lane. Our building will have to fight to get out of our driveway. Contractors and emergency vehicles will have no place to park, all because of bad planning and greed on the part of the owners of the Shops of Rossmoor. We the residents of The Rossmoor Regency Assoc. and myself urge you deny this application for conditional use. This is a not an asset for those of us who presently live here and want to continue enjoying our present quality of life. Sincerely, Nancy Holland 12300 Montecito Rd., 430 Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 598 -7174 From: Kathy Barnes [mailto:dbmermeraaol.comt Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:36 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Health club behind Sprouts The idea of a health club behind Sprouts is probably the worst thing that could happen in that center. The traffic in that center is already over whelming and adding a facility that large is absolutely ridiculous. The city is not thinking of their own citizens who live in the apartments and condos that back that area. The city is also not being a good neighbor to the citizens of Rossmoor who are already inconvenienced by the parking on the streets by their homes by the residents of the apartments and condos who already do not have enough parking in the proposed health club area. I strongly urge the city to deny the Health club the right to build there in the center! Sincerely, Kathleen Barnes Rossmoor l J From: Gary Brown [ mailto :gary.brown(aelometals.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2016 7:11 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: LA Fitness Im e- mailing you my opposition to the proposed LA fitness facility, specifically for the following reasons: The turn signal at Rossmoor Center Way is dangerously congested as it stands today with traffic backing up onto Seal Beach blvd routinely. Traffic turning left onto St Cloud is also heavily congested in its existing condition. The 4 way stop sign at Sprouts is already congested and dangerous for pedestrians. There is not enough parking in the area and parking will flow on to local residential streets. Excessive traffic / speeding / noise are already existing problems during school drop off and pick up times in Rossmoor. Thank you for your consideration, Regards, Gary Brown 3191 Mainway Drive, Rossmoor From: Richard Daskam, Broker- Associate CalBRE 01091037 [mailto:rdaskam@aol.com] {t� Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 7:49 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Cc: Broker 562-857-1965 Richard Daskam Subject: Fitness Club in Rossmoor Center - NO Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner, 211 Eighth Street Community Development Department Seal Beach, CA 90740 e -mail clandavazoOsealbeachca.gov or call 562- 431 -2527 ext 1324 I own multiple units in this immediate area at 12200 Montecito Road and I am 100% against the building of the fitness club in the currently proposed location for many reasons. 1. The location of the building will cause an alley -like valley between the Rossmoor Park HOA and back of the fitness center along Rossmoor WAy. It will feel like you are in a canyon driving down that road with such a large building abutted to the road. 2. Having the new building so close to Rossmoor Park & Rossmoor Regency will cause there to be an inferior view from both buildings. Looking into an oversized building like what is proposed will cause financial harm to those owners in their property & resale values. 3. There are already issues in the parking lot behind Kohls with kids drinking, eating & leaving messes, urinating and having sex. Putting another alley way along there will only make it that much more secluded at night for this activity to occur. 4. The overwhelming amount of traffic it will cause along Montecito Road and within the shopping itself will be a pedestrian nightmare! There are a lot of older shoppers drawn to the center and older residents throughout the condos & townhouse along Montecito Road that walk to their destinations through the parking lot and from their homes. Adding hundreds and hundreds of cars a day up and down Rossmoor Way will severely impact those shoppers and likely cause more pedestrian vs vehicle accidents. 5. 1 go to shops next to other fitness centers and before 9 am and after 4pm there is normally not parking within several hundred feet of their establishments. Now I understand that you want all of the fitness people to park in the back there, but during peek hours, the parking will have to overflow into the Kohl's parking, the Sprouts parking and onto Montecito Road, etc. This will further impact the parking, traffic and safety of all citizens in the area. 6. If having a Fitness club is so beneficial to the area, then why don't you put it in front of the F &M Bank building by Baby's R us? That will allow for an overwhelming amount of parking on all sides, at least 4 ways for their vehicles to exit the parking lot, it won't cause any issues with pedestrians because the entry & exit points are already highly used and very visible (no hidden corners or accesses from the front of complex). 7. Another option is to put the Fitness club in place of the failed Marie Calendars, allowing for a lot of street signage, and again, numerous ways to enter and exit the facility, not just one or two, very tight options down Rossmoor Way. 8. We didn't fight you when you wanted to demolish and rebuild this new center, and added in several places for alcohol to be served, sold and distributed. We were all looking out for the betterment of there area. But this proposal is crossing the line and completely against what the area needs and would be complemented by. 9. The developer of the center should have laid out their buildings better in the beginning so as to not leave this big void in the back of the center. I think the area would be better suited as a playground and park for the local residents, not as a 24 hour fitness center. Richard Daskam 562 - 857 -1965 J From: Enea Ostrich [mailto:eneaoCahotmail.com] Sent: Tucsday, May 17, 2016 1:01 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: LA FITNESS Project at Shops at Rossmoor Seal Beach Dear Crystal I am a resident in CPE Seal Beach and the reason I am mainly against this project being planned for that space behind Sprouts because there is already an LA Fitness on Valley View Blvd, a short drive away. There is also potential for more aggravating parking lot accidents. There already have been plenty in front. Some are on record with the police or fire but many are small claims directly to the insurance companies that you have not seen. The Shops at Rossmoor is just that - -- stores maybe some restaurants, a bank, and we do not need to be cookie cutter in Seal Beach and have sports added like other bigger cities. After all, we are Seal Beach... supposedly the "Mayfair by the Sea ". How can you be the ideal "Mayfair by the Sea" with already increased traffic due to corporate shops and restaurants? At this point I feel we have veered away from the quiet Seal Beach and we will become too dense just like surrounding cities. Do we really want to add more chaos to our streets... to our shopping areas? Why? I go to Sprouts to shop quietly and without incident but I am willing to drive in the future to another city if it means peace and quiet again. Too much traffic has developed over the years since Target Center and this Shops at Rossmoor increased their shop space. With the amount of people in Leisure World ACTUALLY driving in and around this area, there is a specific hazard as well because they are not used to so many cars here (that is truth... compare it to before the Shops at Rossmoor were built ... very true). There are also more accidents due to it. As a matter of fact, my husband was involved in an accident in the parking lot at one of these shopping centers and the elderly man was in a hurry to leave his parking space and totally ignored the fact that my husband came to a stop sign behind him. My husband beeped and since the man could not hear he kept backing out and hit the fender on my husband's car. I predict more of this happening at the new LA Fitness proposed site and also by Sprouts too. You will see more accidents with elderly like that in the future if you build that gym. The gym patrons park and when they leave they have to exit to the boulevard and the four way stop at Sprouts /Pei Wei and throughway to the proposed site is already challenged. Do you really want to see more car accidents in the parking area and in the streets that surround this site? 1 guarantee it. Please keep Seal Beach quiet and happy.. it is why we chose to live here NOT Newport Beach or Huntington Beach. By the way, I am 52 and not looking forward to retirement here at all. My husband and I are already discussing leaving Seal Beach. I think we will if this LA Fitness is built. There used to be a fitness center long ago in this area ( Rossmoor Athletic Club). It was smaller and died out. Do you really think building a BIGGER one will fly here? I think not. Thank you, Enea Ostrich 3621 Camelia Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 From: eneao(c)hotmail.com [mailto:eneao0hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:15 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Rossmoor LA Fitness Project Dear Crystal: 1 wrote yesterday calling Seal Beach " Mayfair by the Sea". Of course I meant Mayberry by the Sea. Regardless, I am against the project entirely. Keep Seal Beach clean... we do not want more smog ... PLEASE no more projects like this. Thanks, Enea Ostrich 3621 Camelia St. Seal Beach, CA. 90740 J From: Angie Epstein [mailto:aepsteinl GDsocal.rr.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:10 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Gym in Rossmoor Center Dear Sir ]Madam, I am emailing my concerns about the plan to build a LA Fitness behind Sprouts in the Rossmoor Center. We who live in Rossmoor (with the elementary schools in this community) that have children are concerned about the additional Traffic on Montecito, the increased crime that this facility will bring in being so close to the neighborhood (practically in the Condo's /townhomes backyard). There seems to be a riff between Seal Beach and Rossmoor but I don't see it that way. I am a supporter of the Shops on Main Street and a lot of Seal Beach, but also support the Los Alamitos Community. We do not want this gym in this tiny area of Rossmoor Center. You cannot imagine the horrific things that have been happening in our neighborhood since all those shops went in. It is awful. Not to mention with the increased crime, the bad rap our community is receiving and also the potential to lower property value with all this exposure of crime. We do not want this gym here, all the traffic and exposure, not to mention the risk of our children riding their bikes to the center! The estimates of parking /increased traffic are underestimated to say the least. Look at 24 hour fittness parking lot any time of the day. And they have adequate parking. Please respect the people who pay so much in taxes and do not allow this to go through. We are just families trying to live in a community where our children are safe Thank you, Mrs. Angela Epstein From: Home [ mailto :lennifersfriedman(cDgmail.coml n Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:37 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Shops at Rossmoor Fitness Club Hi Cindy, My name is Jennifer Friedman and my husband and I and out children live in Rossmoor on Ballantine Drive. (Kempton and Montecito). We strongly oppose of the LA Fitness coming into Rossmoor. The traffic is a big issue. Traffic coming in off of St. Cloud at Rush Hour is busy and to add all of those cars during that time is daunting. I have seen the people conducting the traffic study but have they done them at St. Cloud at 6:00 or 7:00 when most people using the gym will come in? It needs to be done around Montecito. I also do not want to have more people coming into Rossmoor in general. The reason we bought our homes and have rental properties in Rossmoor as well, is because it is a quiet community. I do not want to being unwanted traffic and people from other communities into our area. Everyone speaks of how the crime has gone up since the Toys R US and other large companies have come in. If we get another rise in crime, the residents are not going to be happy. We pay a lot of money to live in Rossmoor for the hometown feel it has. AWAY from the hustle and bustle. Now is it coming to us. Also, the taste of Los Al, which supports the high school has always been there. The high school parents are wondering where they will fundraise for our kids. This takes away from our ability to support our kids at the hush school level. I cannot come to the meeting as well as so many families with young kids who have sports and activities during that time. Please consider finding an alternate spot for the fitness center. It is too close to Rossmoor. } Thank you Jen and Jason Friedman J From: Ash Ersheid [mailto:aersheid(;1gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 8:59 PM To: rpoaboardCo)verizon.net Cc: Crystal Landavazo Subject: RPOA's City Seal Beach comments for Shops at Rossmoor Health Club. Mr. Cripps, I am one of those Rossmoor Park residents that only have one car port for my 2 bedroom condominium and have no choice but to park my car outside behind Sprouts because my wife occupies our carport. In the attached study, the board did not address the people that are going to be displaced from the proposed health club parking lot that is going to have a huge impact on the parking on Montecito and the artery streets. The idea of having the Rossmoor Center Way be a one way street is great which will make the street little wider, and in result, can be used to offset the above mentioned displaced cars and have them permitted to park on each side the Rossmoor Way Center. I hope my concern can be addressed or considered in the mitigation declaration. Sincerely, -Ash From: Thomas Cripps <rooaboard(a)verizon.net> Date: May 1, 2016 at 7:00:26 PM PDT To: rpoaboard(@,venzon.net Subject: RPOA's City Seal Beach comments for Shops at Rossmoor Health Club. All concerned All residents at Rossmoor Park should have received a mailed notice Saturday, April 30th. from the City of Seal Beach, stating the Planning Commission will be approving the proposed Shops at Rossmoor health club with some conditions at the hearing June 18th. If you have a neighbor who is not on the present mailing list, please advise them of this notice. It may be an issue of concern to them. Thank you If you have some objections they must be received by by May 20th. -just 16 days to go. Copies of the initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for public review at City Hall and the three Seal Beach public libraries. For all who wish to make a comment they should be sent to: Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner, 211 Eighth Street Community Development Department Seal Beach, CA 90740 e -mail clandavazo(oDsealbeachca.gov or call 562 -431 -2527 ext 1324 On behalf of the Board and the RPOA community the attached 10 page request for four mitigations to be considered has been prepared and e- mailed to the City today. The document will be updated as necessary as soon as a viewing of the public documents have been reviewed. Sincerely, Thomas Cripps, Secretary RPOA From Amikoibarra [ mailto:amikoibarra(a2gmail.comj 1 1 Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:51 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: LA Fitness at Rossmoor Shops Since the shopping center was remodeled we have seen a huge increase in traffic in Los Alamitos Blvd that has seriously impacted the people of Rossmoor. I don't have the evidence to support it but I would imagine that the increase traffic to our quiet neighborhood has also resulted in more crime. We don't need more. Please stop this project. Julio and Paloma Ibarra 2782 coleridge dr Rossmoor, CA 90720 Sent from Julio A. Ibarra's iPhone J J From: TARA KELLOGG [mailto:tlkelloggc@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:22 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Gym at Shops at Rossmoor Dear Ms. Landavazo, As Rossmoor residents, we are strongly against the addition of a 24 hour gym (yet another huge business) in our backyard. While comments from other communities never seem to carry much weight, 1 am sure the school commute for Seal Beach residents attending the high school and middle schools will be greatly impacted during heavy traffic times should there be the added vehicles accessing the gym at those times. Stop developing the heck out of this small space with only one access route into and out of these businesses! Tara & Steve Kellogg Rossmoor Residents since 2000 From: Darryl Lee [ mailto:Darryl.LeeCcbna.mitsubishi- motors.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:06 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Rossmoor Health Club It is funny that Seal Beach always think that their decisions never have any environmental impact. I recall no additional traffic report when the Rossmoor Shops were first proposed. The BLVD is now congested, crime has increased, even the bridge was widened due to no impact. Who are we kidding? When Home Depot was proposing a site near Seal Beach, the community was up in arms as it was too close — congestion, crime, noise, etc. Sound Familiar? Rossmoor is on the outskirts, so Seal Beach preferred to stick everything near Rossmoor as a tax base. If Home Depot proposed a location in Rossmoor, I'm sure Seal Beach would have welcomed it and put out a no environmental impact report as usual. Stop tapping Rossmoor as your tax base and sticking everything over the bridge! No more development, no more congestion, no more increase in crime! Darryl Lee Rossmoor Resident � -J J From: aim Basham Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 2:23 PM To: Crystal Landavazo; Steven Fowler Subject: FW: Letter Regarding Proposed Health Club at Shops of Rossmoor FYI On May 18, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Melissa <mknievel(7a hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Massa -Lavitt and Mr. Sloan, Thank you for your service to our community:) Im a Seal Beach resident, business owner, and current President of the Rossmoor Homeowner's Association. We are very concerned about the proposed plans to put in a Gym behind Sprouts. This will have a significant negative impact on thousands of residents who will be living within a mere 200 ft. of this LA fitness. We found out about the meeting for public comment tonight very late in the game. Unfortunately this meeting is also not listed on Seal Beach's public meeting page. I'm out of town and can't attend but I have attached a copy of the letter I sent to the planning commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board. I wanted you as our Representatives to know our major concerns. Please let me know if there is anyone else I should contact who should know what the "feeling" is in our neck of the woods. Thank you for your time and consideration, Melissa Knievel- Natanson <Letter Regard NOI on Gym.docx> From: Melissa [mailto:mknievel @hotmail.com] n Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:20 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Comments for Negative Mitigation Meeting RE: Proposed Health Club Hi Crystal, I'm out of town and will not be able to attend the meeting tonight regarding the proposed Health Club at the Shops at Rossmoor. I found out about it very short notice, but I would like to submit my comments and the attached letter to both the planning commission and Environmental Quality Control Board. Would you please confirm that you received and will submit. If I should send a separate email to the Environmental Quality Control Board would you please advise as to whom I should direct it to. Thanks for your time on this Melissa Knievel Natanson From: Diana Parton [mailto:parton.ca(a�verizon.netl Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:36 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Cc: enews(abrossmoor- rha.oro Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration, Rossmoor Health Club Ms.Landavazo; Please pardon the tardiness of my comments, it was only today that this matter was brought to my attention. In a quick review of the CEQA Negative Declaration there appears to be one significant error and the overlooking of at least two traffic impacts. The opening pages as well as the parking analysis on pages 80 through 87 state that only 40 parking spaces will be eliminated by the 53,865 square feet of development. Using a standard of 9' x 18 for a parking place and an additional 9' x 12' for a drive lane to access the parking place the math indicates something approaching 200 parking places will be eliminated. This is not an insignificant error. Based on the parking evaluation on page 86 it appears that there will be instances when the parking demand will exceed the available paces. Traffic impacts are addressed extensively. A quick review indicates turn lane impacts as detailed in tables 17 and 19. While the impacts at Seal Beach Blvd /Rossmoor Center Dr. are addressed, impacts at Seal Beach Blvdfrown Center Or are not. It also appears that impacts of traffic crossing Seal Beach Blvd from the Target Center to the Shops at Rossmoor have not been addressed at all. As a resident of Rossmoor who may be affected by this development I would urge the EQCB to take a closer look at the reports to make sure there are not any defects which could result in challenges at a later date. Best Regards Cary parton 11351 Foster Road Rossmoor, CA 90720 ^ From: Abhimanyu (Abhi) Rastogi [mailto:abhimanvu.rastogi @railpros.com) 1 1 Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:51 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Health Club @ the Rossmoor Shops Hi Crystal, As the resident of Rossmoor, I'm really pleased to hear about having access to a fitness club locally within the community. At this point in time, is it known when will it be ready for public use and who should I contact for more information on this facility. Thanks Abhimanyu (Abhi) Rastogi, P.E. L l From: Jason Reed [ mailto: iason.nationsrecoveryOgmail.com] Sent: Munday, May 16, 2016 12:42 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Rossmoor Health Club I have been a Rossmoor resident for over 10 years and am very happy that we might have a health club opening up in the Shops @ Rossmoor. Just wanted to let you know. Jason M Reed 11612 Wallingsford Rd Rossmoor, CA 90720 714 - 925 -2555 cell ^ From: Jody Roubanis [ mailto:iroubanis(a)verizon.net] 1 1 Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 12:00 PM To: Crystal L.andavazo Subject: Hearing on 5/18: Health club in the Shops at Rossmoor Greetings Senior Planner Crystal Landavazo: I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight about the health club that is proposed to go in at the Shops at Rossmoor. Having a gym will have an impact on the Rossmoor community — at very positive one. Having a health facility will benefit the community spirit of wellness for individuals, their families, in the Rossmoor community. I realize that the additional traffic produced because of the facility will cause an additional 3 seconds wait time on the road passing by it. Having a healthy club within walking and biking distance to Rossmoor families will be a huge benefit to the community. It should also be noted that health facilities can provide an excellent pathway for community members to interact. As a side note, I am shocked to see the amount of effort that the Rossmoor Homeowners Association has put forth to inform its members of this meeting to state their concerns. It is obvious that the board has reservations about this facility going in. Please know that the RHA board has acted in the past to provide the community less opportunities for exercise, when it can mean an infringement of the convenience for some community members. The RHA board has worked to remove the parking restriction on the bike route in the community that enhances the safety for kids riding their bike to school, because the 30 year old restrictions are inconvenient to residents who live on the bike route. The RHA did not put forth any information about the county hearing on their proposed removal of the parking restriction sign in May of 2015. Through the multiple communications about the hearing tonight, it is very evident that the RHA board does not want this to go in. l J Sincerely, Dr. Jody L. Roubanis, resident 12301 Kensington Road, Rossmoor From. tkmwe4 (o)vahoo.com [mailto:tkrowe4no.vahoo.coml Sent: Monday, May '16, 20'16 12:14 PM To: Winnie Bell Subject: Strongly against LAFitness in Rossmoor Center My husband Tim and I have lived in Rossmoor since 1981, raising our children and intending to continue living in our home in our lifespan. We are noting the high traffic congestion along Main Way (one block from our home at 2871 Tucker). We are highly against the idea of LA Fitness building in the shopping center near Sprouts. The school and park traffic as well as the overflow parking of apartment residents has made it difficult for us to use Rossmoor Center road. Building of this Center would make traffic and parking in the area unbearable. I should add that Tim and I have been members of LAFitness for years, going very frequently to the center on Valley View in Garden Grove. We find it convenient at that location and don't see a reason to have it closer. Please register this as a strong vote against the building of this location by two long term senior citizens who would find it to be removing the quality of life Rossmoor presently offers. Sincerely, Karen Rowe From: Mary San Paolo Jones [mailto:mary-spi0gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:00 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Seal Beach Mitigated Negative declaration: Rossmoor Health Club, CUP 15 -7 Dear Ms.Landavazo, My husband and I owned a home in Rossmoor for 25 years. We moved two years ago because of the traffic which increased after Seal Beach constructed the BIG BOX DEVELOPMENTS at Rossmoor Center and across the street. We were bombarded with traffic, theft, noise, and air pollution. We still own a townhome in Rossmoor that our daughter rents, and where I watch her two children. The traffic is already dangerous traveling on Montecito toward Rossmoor Center. Please don't make it worse by adding a health club to the hodgepodge of shops and restaurants. There are a lot of young families in Rossmoor and I've seen many near misses with cars and bicyclists, not to mention people on foot. We know Seal Beach is enjoying the tax dollars derived from the centers. We feel resentful when we see how Seal Beach is improving its landscaping and planning its building with thought and consideration. It seems like Seal Beach does not care about the residents in Rossmoor, or "over the hill." I beg you to be a good neighbor and scrap the health club plans. Thank you. Mary San Paolo L� From: SteveStepo [ mai Ito: ssteponovich @socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 6:15 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: Health Club @ The Shops / /Bad Idea Hello, all I have spoken with in Rossmoor are totally against this idea due to the increased traffic, the increased crime that traffic will bring, the parking nightmare it will create in that area, and the likely diminution in property values, especially for those who live close to the project, they are very concerned and are hopeful the project does not go forward. Stephen Steponovich, Esq. Attorney At Law /Real Estate Broker 3352 Huntley Drive Rossmoor, CA 90720 562- 431 -7439 Telephone 562- 598 -0209 Fax SSteponovich (o),,socal.rr.com ^ From: Christine Teng [mailto:citeng20yahoo.com] ( I Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:30 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: LA Fitness Health Club Hi- I'm a Rossmoor resident and won't be able to attend the LA Fitness Health Club at The Shops at Rossmoor meeting tonight. I just want to let you know that I'm against having the health club built. We already have way too many retailers (the latest being Riteaid at the corner of St. Cloud & Seal Beach Blvd) and I've seen traffic increased in the neighborhood. Christine 'I -') From: Rozanne Williams [mailto:Rozanne L Williams@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:S1 AM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: LA Fitness As residents of Rossmoor, near this proposed sight of LA Fitness Health Club, I and my husband would like to express that we are NOT in favor of it. There is already too much traffic and congestion in that area. It's awful. Find a nice place down in Seal Beach for this project. Respectfully submitted, Rozanne and Cristian Williams 714.404.9060 Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 3 Health Club within Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis Dated October 2015 Separate Bound Copy Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 3A Expanded Queuing Assessment dated April 6, 2016 Separate Bound Copy Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 4 Project Plans: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations � l \( 4 \ � \ � } } } {k § § § :::,l,: }; =f � % \ $� , y \ ! / | / : O ,& e! , «V>ID wiN3 w mm % lu < < V) U LLJ CO � O m - \ u / � E 4-j m e / � \( 4 � \ � } } } {k § § § :::,l,: }; =f � % \ } \ /j\ / : O O % lu < < V) U LLJ CO � O m - \ u / � E 4-j m e / Ln (D r) --E2 O � c � ^ ) q\ / \ ©�: {_ \ !, \j/ CQ/ u \QS =JQ9c ;! 4) {] \( 4 � } }. } {k § § § :::,l,: }; =f \ !, \j/ CQ/ u \QS =JQ9c ;! 4) {] � } \ } \ /j\ } § : \ !, \j/ CQ/ u \QS =JQ9c ;! 4) {] ®_, x' IE,r�gf Irr•9 IbZO6 VD HDV391V35 s frh•�gr�•� OA19 HOV30 lb3S I IbN NOOW550211V SdOHS 8A]D H1lb9H �!3O' S it �klii! {�illE s 39MDHd 1N3 W3111N3 �3D o4 J d i �z 9 $0 �a iR II 1i1r�lllii°Il �`Ii�i°II�pE _ bl ifs IiIY'ilFfi'i'ILI =�II �I.i L� n; pp In ! m ft L-. �tltl linrmttr�rJ U 'rr rlllµt�l 'M �mili y I�I 1 I� _ �� I� _�IIIIIyuulllluLw!lllpwn Ytuu.ltA u�� f 0 1� oil ITT, Ifi'-IiN, "h'"1 inSR�9lSR�SRn ib� it K. I ® I .. 0b106 VJ'H:)b39 N35 - 1 1 I GA79 HOV39 N35 11621 bOOW5SOdIV SdOHS gmDH -Lb9H e ,a g n 39VTDVd iN3W31IIIN3 a g emn .„• § a� I I a3 O ' s Q e Z a I c U <I 0¢ g om & i ' 3u z �Y n � z m p It y e a 0 His AIII ` .� i't1°r°lp I P I, ' 15 s�f rt,2z [h 1 I 0 w — ijyb l r bpi a m E O U a N Z Y Q a so z� c x n � z m p It y e a 0 His AIII ` .� i't1°r°lp I P I, ' 15 s�f rt,2z [h 1 I 0 w — ijyb l r bpi a m E O U a N Z Y Q a so z� c x 0 His AIII ` .� i't1°r°lp I P I, ' 15 s�f rt,2z [h 1 I 0 w — ijyb l r bpi a m E O U a N Z Y Q a so z� c x e) mp ;A S % y d �S ju } {' /| elys:lljf e w� w UN \ ( zzZ1zE i(ll! cbt! §! , , \ \! ( \(! GT7 /§§§d \ ; + I } .................................... �.............................. ........... _ "_. _.._PFA�o ObZQ6 V7'HJV38 N3S I � �I - �it, SdOHS @g e E •i. iIOOWSSON 1V 9nl::) Hllb'3H Q 3D"DVdIMW3llIlN3 .................................... �.............................. ........... _ "_. _.._PFA�o I � �I 1 U N I z N W N E J c E J Q c s N m M W 'W W QLL p QdQ (V Q O a aw,',.Fw w ti tiff S NKKK Z H� a 0 D 0 0 N N m 'O m C E E d C L O a s= a � W a4 a I L N C L Wr LL C W y O m o E 2 > m o m U C O U 0 m N C 'C O � m m N L E o, o c m a E m A m E T y C T V N � m � 3 m a m` � N d N U � Ot1 � C C � Q J m U D m � a LL J W A V ObL06VD'HDV39 W3S x Iif'� CWS HJb39 N3S I JbZI 9OOWSSON IV SdOHS e .9 3sf - 'iiF; of 1 Iii on]:) HiW3H fx 39VNDNd 1N3W3IlIlN3 q E J c E J Q c s N m M W 'W W QLL p QdQ (V Q O a aw,',.Fw w ti tiff S NKKK Z H� a 0 D 0 0 N N m 'O m C E E d C L O a s= a � W a4 a I L N C L Wr LL C W y O m o E 2 > m o m U C O U 0 m N C 'C O � m m N L E o, o c m a E m A m E T y C T V N � m � 3 m a m` � N d N U � Ot1 � C C � Q J m U D m � a LL J W A O O Q 0 0 0 a w 0 q CD Q � ...................lo O O Q 0 0 0 a w 0 r r 0 w w � ao wN aW;Fw = N O O o E U t0 U � h 3 N � C N a E F W ao I wJ ti Z O F w O O O ti m o t03E U y. � E a o`Od O LL C — U O N ry E cLL N N O � U �p LL t 7 > C N x a x 0 G_ Z O C O O a w 0 ObL06 b'J'HJb98 T135 " Onl9 H:) 7V3S IIbiI NOOWSSOU 1V S60HS 3e• e qH:) H1lV3H - -0 _ 3DV>IDVd1N3W]1ILN3 x r r 0 w w � ao wN aW;Fw = N O O o E U t0 U � h 3 N � C N a E F W ao I wJ ti Z O F w O O O ti m o t03E U y. � E a o`Od O LL C — U O N ry E cLL N N O � U �p LL t 7 > C N x a x 0 G_ Z O C O O a w 0 Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 5 Neighborhood Meeting Summaries Dated February 9, 2016 & March 10, 2016 Shops at Rossmoor Community Outreach for Proposed Health Club Neighborhood Meeting Summary February 9, 2016 Prepared by: Katz & Associates Contact: Joan Isaacson, Vice President and Facilitator 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Jlsaacson @katzandassociates.com (619) 966 -8077 On January 27, 2016, The Shops at Rossmoor conducted a neighborhood meeting for a new health club at the center. This meeting summary provides information about the meeting format, attendance, and themes from the discussion. Construction of a new health club at The Shops at Rossmoor is planned on a portion of the sizable back parking lot. The back parking lot is mostly unused, even during peak times. The existing parked cars are largely the result of illegal overflow parking from an adjacent multi - family residential development. The health club is consistent with the City of Seal Beach zoning, and the required conditional use permit requires approval by the Planning Commission. As part of the construction plan for the new building, the parking lot will be reconfigured in order to minimize the amount of lost parking spaces to approximately 40 spaces, leaving sufficient parking required by the City's zoning code. Because residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the Shops at Rossmoor may have some questions and concerns about the new use, new building, parking reconfiguration, and design /landscape changes, Shops at Rossmoor conducted a neighborhood meeting. WHERE AND WHEN The neighborhood meeting was held on January 27, 2016, from 6 to 8 p.m., at the Old Ranch Country Club. This location was selected because of its proximity to the Shops at Rossmoor and the residents. Page 1 of 7 The purpose of the meeting was to: • Provide information and answers about the planned project. • Solicit questions, concerns, and ideas from the residents of the adjacent neighborhood, and answer questions to the extent possible. • Use the public input to fine tune the health club design plans, where feasible. • Continue to build the relationship between the Shops at Rossmoor and the community. Approximately 10 days before the neighborhood meeting, a flier was distributed to residents living near the project site. Hand delivery and U.S. Mail were used. After the delivery of the fliers, some recipients forwarded the flier to other interested residents. Attachment A contains the flier, and Attachment B contains a map showing the extent of initial flier distribution and delivery method. The flier provided contact information for questions about the project and the meeting. Approximately five emails were received from community members before the meeting, and timely responses were sent to all. ATTENDANCE Approximately 65 people attended and participated. FORMAT The meeting began with a welcome and explanation of the purpose of the meeting, and then a short presentation was given about the health club, including location, landscape enhancements, parking reconfiguration, Seal Beach Boulevard street improvements, and construction timeline. Following the presentation was an approximately 90- minute period for attendees to ask questions and share concerns. Representatives of Shops at Rossmoor provided answers and responses as questions were asked. Attendees also used an Input Card to submit questions and comments. A professional facilitator managed the meeting to ensure that all attendees had a chance to comfortably participate and be heard. DISCUSSION THEMES Themes in the questions, ideas, and concerns in the community's input are summarized below. - Support for the Use Many people who spoke at the meeting said that they like the idea of a new health club at the Shops at Rossmoor and may use the facilities. - Parking People's questions about reconfiguration of the parking varied depending on where they live. The main question from residents of single - family homes asked about whether parking restrictions will be enforced. This was sometimes followed up with a concern that condominium residents may have to park on streets in front of single - family homes, potentially forcing residents to pursue a neighborhood permit Page 2 of 7 parking program. The main question raised by condominium residents was where they would park if they could not use the lot at the center, citing insufficient spaces in their developments. Traffic & Circulation Concerns about circulation tended to focus on people's experience of existing congestion and the effect of the new health club traffic. Some questioned whether a new turn lane on Seal Beach Boulevard could achieve improvements. There were many who asked and offered ideas for finding another access point other than Rossmoor Center Way. While the peak hour of the health club is 5pm to 6pm, concerns were expressed about increased morning traffic occurring during peak traffic for taking kids to school, getting to work, etc. The existing traffic volume on Rossmoor Center Way also was of concern, especially at the intersection with the Sprouts driveway. - Pedestrian Safety Some meeting attendees talked about Rossmoor Center Way being a neighborhood walking street, and expressed opinions about the presence of some existing safety hazards for pedestrians. Questions were raised about the potential for traffic associated with the health club to increase safety hazards. Additionally, several people identified ideas for making Rossmoor Center Way feel safer and comfortable for walking. - Location Questions were raised about the possibility of the new health club being located somewhere else in the center or in Seal Beach. Several questions focused on the possibility of adding a smaller boutique health club to the center. - Aesthetics Meeting attendees appreciated the team sharing the landscape concepts. Several suggested adding more landscaping and bigger trees to screen the new building from the residential properties, and looking for ways to make the new building better fit into the neighborhood. - Construction The construction process was the subject of many questions, including how long will construction take, what are the construction hours, will Rossmoor Center Way and the parking lot be affected. -Other Items The community raised concerns about whether or not a crime study was conducted and would the project include electric vehicle charging stations. - Approval Process Several people asked about the City of Seal Beach's process for reviewing and approving the project. Topics included environmental review, preparation and review responsibilities for the traffic study, and potential involvement of the County of Orange in the process. Page 3 of 7 Attachment A Neighborhood Meeting Notification Filer Neighborhood :Meeting Planning for a new health club is underway at the Shops at Rossmoor. It will be built on a portion of the under -used parking lot in the back of the center, generally located behind the Sprouts market along Rossmoor Center Way. The existing parking stalls and lanes will be reconfigured to continue to support the.center's guests and operational needs of the shopping center, including employee parking. We are hosting a neighborhood meeting to share information about the new health club project and to address questions and comments that you might have. The health club will serve as a enjoyable neighborhood asset for fitness, and we look forward to telling you more about it. Attachment B Flier Distribution Map :��' �y�� ©. o'v a= d`i:3� b� �t �,;L�,.,`�t � � � 0 w w k q§ v0 �-Z � §k$ ) \§ ME 0 �G) k�� } \\j ! \ ) \ ( CL \ } \ ( ) \ CO _ \ / { \ » 2 LO } ALL \ < « f _j _j / {,te, \ 0 ! �c F: LU E /) / §I }j } \\j ! \ ) \ ( CL \ } \ ( ) \ CO _ / { I » 2 } \ 0 / \ 0 ! F: E £ CO a \ E - / \ I - ) § 2 ®* \ \ - \ \ co m \ a m C j cm 2 _ § $ Q) ( ) om \\ \ co s / \ �\ & {j * 2 \� ; /r \ \k \ /(j 0/ \/ \ ƒ kz, y ! Q \ %/ #f / | © k(f ; \/ z §/% \\q\ \±m w u ;- 2!$ u, 22 u; »« m »»mS - «: uo 2§ u »;� >* 0 0, 02 0 ` ` C & a o u o u >me om) u2a g ge{ @® gS g`wx 9)2 @Q� m g2\ <_ <e co Ew0 Gam! G=, +/ 2 %\/ %( %% %f /\ % G- } \\j ! \ ) \ ( CL \ } \ {\\ \ \ \CL }` \ \ \ CL ( \ ( Cl. c� G CL Co 15 CL \ k - 2 § m - \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ 0 -E e `0 _ - \ \ I \) / E » } ) � ) ®[ \ 3 \ / 2\j \ \ co S { \)k _ cm 7 ] 0 \ E \ cu 0 \ m ,} { A § \ \ .0 //i 4 a _ - ` c00 © / Cl. ~ \ ( f 7 \ / ) \/ (`% 'E >,.- ) m { w y °_ { /7G ( :� m F k / \� co ( cu / / a) \ � u ° \;£ \/ \ \ 0 \ ~ / \ k() ] j 2 Q) 7s 7 I Q -£ \) - \ \ # LO \\ ( *\ )Eow0 \ 2\2 ( )[ @a=a0 m \{ § - \® \/\ \ § \kƒ /\ // It /� /# t\ /\ » 2 2\ I w\g «® «2 w> w§ z®r 2u «7� a)`,e�® 20 2® 2,w 2& u§ 2aa mot�o »a §m@ u�`�� =2 , -0 \$ °§, uo 2» u° 2& Lu 22¥ uo m; ua u, »a, »,qe, »ems ¥wo > 2: 2! 2a� »2 o�- -2 oz ; -. o@�r�`s o: o* o ®- o- 02 oy of 0 e�er� u2 mg > &o oI o� o>! u; ua o= oa g|r 2£ = @> g§�a« «� g» g$ u g§ ))\ )k /({ k!\�(() \-Z )\ \\\ \ )� )\ (( »zeaRe= ELI « __ Q. I$ Cl. « __ Q- X460, ==z {\\ \ \ \CL }` \ \ \ CL ( \ ( 0 a C U � N C E x E Q) o m U C N q) m c o c L 0 7 m w U N Q a a) 0 m m m c Q)c 0 o m U o o M c co O co N E E E� 0 y O ` Z p o m m o m o 3 0 o Lb y Q m N C w Q) ti 3 h Q) o am N y Q N .0 L L Woo ar m� m Q) Q) QU mU oQ E" m y c m o CL co E 'c yo S Fa ym a m E'� y co 0� y LO .y O U I N Q) Y � L.. N s o U` m`� E t E m E E (D N C y y C +. C U O U m,h U w y 2E LL 0 y J co m a Z a) m �...c.. `m E o.m o c 3 N N m C C C .O O Q ?+ m h�;O N N m yS:m yOm�O M— cu m.0 U OfY� P, u E 4 00 ,C O y of u) O r i m N y M t �? 7 Lo y O r z 'p �- Of N N 2� Q 3 ry y N �' N N N O N # N ... # E U z * C I— xt a xt m o * m N m 'C 0 a tiom�a hEc� I- m -m -Q =� F-.SE� _ U V-y I-Ec 2aa ai z y a- Z k 0 Z 0i Z qm y ZU- � c Z.`: z m 2 Ul W c y E I W c W y .c W e Lli W Q a m W o o W s W o .c � g U � � . 3 0 - 0 �.= OUn oc.c U o OU ac 3 a� U �-°o Uao V o� o Uao°m Ua °o N 01 J J y mm'a�� moor cc q) m3 m3E3 21m�cy mmm co cc � c �t Lt z o o o a--�JE a �2 CL ax axcoz a z� a�-� azo a_zo o -� a�o N qQ N J N � N ova toq z� y m m lot q c m 0 n b N 0 w 0 E 3 o° Q a a c U y U 0 ti c lL Q J O ll N a N E U o� a z N N m m - Y N m p N U � O a W W J p C o J � U Y U L �0 c o H 2 c _ m y CO N G N y LL co y a O L O 01 G U n.c N m m y c Q m m ; y m .2 E � G °- c N c cr w N m b ° `. U N m y m ¢� �, m y CO a � CO 2 a m O G C `. Ecu W CL C a M c m a m ° C O rn c ° ° vi o c m Q) m O o a co U c o j ° `U° a m a c U m Ll a V E c om h N o� o. of = o Q .cn L O ° E .m m O� m N O a� y y y N m yEmjm? E o m y °o can o m �m N o a>j ° m 3 O o m a c.E� o° E :• U� °' � m � y ° U °' oc'O,d 01N - G a d N m N s Nmc� 3 O m ac ¢m_ ?cN 'G a N m N E? a U M 3 M M O] a 2 m� O E° N xa o N N xt c st u a m oa st M skti xx N u_ �, U 'c G o a G m �C� yZ N F= ti a I— .:. m I— .c I— m a c N c o o m Z N Z m Z -_ Z °mac' o� Z N Z a Z -o) ZU) oin =a t ° mo W°_' �aa W y �� W �3 W° gEW-0co Z m Z) W m �� W- �� W e �W W oE. °- m cam m �Ta O ." m ...G. N .h N m N N .h h 7 N y i �° m .V ..�. N� N m CO G -G M m m m p � Om OW Oc 0— Em ote. > p ° pa p� pU O� aN � m me Uy Um U�° UNcN �tm Q) Uc U3 Um.�o mo Uo Uo U� Uomo �¢o yam° Jim —i O JG m J0 m mna O ZQ' co Ja m J-G m" -j 04 m aN dp m m m m m O y N O .� L G o E c G m c m U m m t O m t t m= m L U t m p t rn rn a3 a� ac �a�iz a IL CL 6- U y tD a�o dc' o �� mP rn oia`a to ma m m �a a 0 0 0 0 0 U W 0 c m E U Q a' c U h 0 0 0 m ii 0 0 N N E U a a a _ CO \ ; § /E / 4 )\ o ! 00 \ E \ \ \0 \ CO {/ / \ m « \ 2 ® {; \ \ \ �\ \ / \ \k rz / 2 o \ CO �Q C) { \ 0/ \ \ \ \ { \ ® : o :© ( 2 § ) 2 § -0 0 5 Z Q \) \ \\ 0 :, 2 &: « § 0 Cc La \ (\ co - \ \) L) § {{ / {m / ®u $// ( « -& %} 5¥ « \� 6 /\ ]�! )) ) ; {/ )« (n 2{ \kC i\ \] \)\ §\ Q) (D b\ \)§ §) %\/ \{ C/) u,- Lu u2eo u� urn u� m�, <� 2) § ®k 2/ §) \\ §} §\: §Q 2/{ §§ j® / \/ §` E)2/ E; \/( §( §22 E)f %, g2 gaw g# Ij » \\ %e G®2 G� G\tt 2$ Mm G° g \J Co (( i)f %J %»(e %e /@§ %/ /G/ %e± {)) § \\) \ \�f /` ! \ ( ( \ \ Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 6 Correspondence Received After May 18, 2016 Crystal Landavazo From: Kelli .. Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:25 PM To: Crystal Landavazo Subject: proposed health club Good afternoon, I am writing on behalf of my family and neighbors. We ask that you, please, oppose the proposed health club at Rossmoor Center. We moved to Rossmoor for the community, high caliber schools, safety etc. This quality of all of these wonderful things is slowing being brought down by the over building in the Rossmoor center. Since we moved in the traffic has increased drastically as has the crime rate. We need to say enough is enough. Not every inch of the property needs to be filled with another business. Please take into consideration the local families. Take a drive through the street between Sprouts and Pei Wei. Go at several different times of day. You will see that the four way stop is a complete nightmare! Traffic is always backed up and it is very dangerous for pedestrians. The neighborhood kids love to walk over to CPK or In -n -Out, but adding upwards of 800 cars a day will make if very unsafe for them to walk through that area. We don't even need a study to tell us this. Its blatantly obvious and anyone who doesn't realize this is obviously looking at the bottom dollar for this construction and not the safety and well being of the community. Also, many Seal Beach residents drive up Seal Beach Blvd. to get to the high school. This street is also very impacted already and we are going to add more cars to that. This will increase drive times for the Seal Beach residents as well as impact their safety too. As a Rossmoor home owner, a person who values our community and volunteers throughout for the betterment of it, and most importantly as a mother, I ask you to kindly rethink this idea. It will have a very negative impact on so many levels. Please stop this project from going forward. Please think about the citizens and not just the bottom dollar. Thank you for your time and consideration, Kelli Rehling May 28, 2016 Ref: 1) Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Initial Study, Rossmoor Health Club, Conditional Use Permit (CUP)15 -7 Attachment: Comments to Initial Study, ref. 2 Dear interested and concerned parties, Please find my comments attached. I have organized my comments by Study Report section number. Prefacing each section is a table summarizing the City's initial finding, along with an alternate finding based upon my review of the report, its references (and omissions), as well as photos, measurements, and supplemental ma- terials to substantiate them. These alternate finding level(s) do not include any mitigation steps suggested herein, other than those proposed with ref. 1. In the opinion of the undersigned, the project should NOT be approved as a conse- quence of the detrimental impact not only to Shops at Rossmoor (SOR) neighbors, but to present and future customers of, as well as commercial tenants at, SoR. This stems from the number of additional trips cited, displacing existing mall customers and pushing traffic levels into aggrevation range, even in the absence of holidays. In the present, challenged economic environment, many shopping centers in O.C. have suffered an inexorable downward spiral following short - sighted decisions by prop- erty owner or developer. It seems reasonable that the City of Seal Beach should take every legal step to discourage the project so that it does not needless suffer the consequences and liabilities of the developers self - inflicted wound. Best regards, Craig Maunders 12200 Montecito Road, Apt. J206 Seal Beach, California 90740 4.4 - Biological Resources Initial Study Alternate Assessment a) Have a substantial adverse effect, No Impact Possible Impact either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species... b) Have a substantial adverse effect No Impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified... c) Have a substantial adverse effect No Impact on federally protected wetlands... d) Interfere substantially with the No Impact Possible Impact movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established... ... corridors ... ... nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies Less Than or ordinances protecting biological Significant resources, such as tree preservation... f) Conflict with the provisions No Impact of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community... 4.4 - Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candi- date, sensitive, or special status species... d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident... wildlife species or with established ... .. nursery sites? The Initial Study asserts (page 30) that "the probability of existence of designated species... is very low Shops at Rossmoor is known to be occupied, if not presently nested, by at least one wildlife species of raptor, possibly owl. One source suggests that all owl species are Federally protected. Determination of protected status derives from determination of species which must be made by a qualified naturalist with specialist expertise. There is no indication in the Initial Study that this has been accomplished. With the implied possibility of use of graders, pile drivers, heavy construction vehicles and /or the like, impact to any nest- ing presently underway or within the project development period is likely. As suggested by the traffic analysis, approach to and departure from the developed fitness center could allocate a substantial portion of new traffic load through Town Center, as well as the South, Southwest, and Western complex entrances, in addi- tion to the most direct path thin Rossmoor Center Way. Interference with the creature(s), due to this operational traffic would depend heavily upon the sensitivity of the species in question. It would appear imperative that the City retain necessary expertise to definitize species identification, status, and impact, rather than engage in assertions of "probabilities" Suggested possible mitigation measures: • If nesting/nursery will be in progress during proposed construction/development as scheduled, reschedule it so that it is not. 4.12 - Noise Initial Study Alternate Assessment a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Potentially Significant Significant Impact Potentially Significant 4.12 Noise b) Ground borne vibration or noise 1. It is likely that the residents of the condominium complex situated directly north of the proposed project would not con- sider noise emanating from pile drivers, graders, jack hammers and the like (88.9 dB, ref. page 57) , that are sufficient to cause damage to the ears (per National Institutes of Health, 85 dB in the absence of hearing protection), "Less than signifi- cant impact." To the extent that these construction activities may be undertaken as part of the project, it would appear they are therefore "Potentially Significant." Suggested possible mitigation measures: • Provide appropriate and timely warning notice in advance of noisy construction activities exceeding NIH limit cited above, at 233 feet, and especially emphasize the hazard to children. • Arrange for training in the use of and distribution of earplugs to impacted community before onset of offending con- struction activity . c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The Initial Study (page 54,12), that "the proposed project will not result in any new uses or traffic generation that would increase noise levels in the vicinity..." clearly this is untrue, for at least two reasons: 1. The Initial Study itself identifies 1,218 daily trips generated due to the health club (page 69, table 15), although it does not state how it obtained this number. Current parking usage in the project area have been observed, if special events like "Taste of Los Alamitos," are excluded, to range from 42 to 112, depending on time of day, and includes employee and cus- tomer (principally Pei Wei and Sprouts), along with historically tolerated parking by neighborhood residents. Like individ- ual employees, individual residents do not generally come and go every hour of the day as fitness customers collectively do. Of the two, the new fitness usage will dominate and bring a increase in traffic noise, along with auto door and trunk slam- ming events, conversation and the like. These will occur without regard to, nor coordination with, freight arrivals or un- loads at existing stores (which have been observed in both morning and afternoon hours), nor activation of waste compac- tors. The associated increased and existing noise(s), therefore, would need to be combined according to the logarithmic scale as alluded to in the first paragraph of page 53. From existing noise measurements, estimates of present trip counts vs combined total, the increase due to parking lot noise alone (i.e. excluding traffic noise) can be shown to be in excess of 3 dB. The city should perform said estimates and calculations, and publish them in an update substantiating the objective ba- sis on which it makes its claim. 2. Even in the absence of new traffic, the building itself, where it is presently proposed, will take on the unintended new use of "acoustic reflector," amplifying the increased traffic noise from Rossmoor Center Way, and sending it to the condos to the north, where the former traffic noise was largely reflected away by the carport wall. With the height of the new build- ing, both the northerly and southerly directed noise will be directed towards bedroom windows. See attached schematic illustrating this. Independent noise measurements taken at the approximate location of the proposed new building northern wall showed peaks from 72.5 dB(A) to 80.5 db(A) under a very limited measurement period. Possible mitigation measures • Move the proposed development south, such the additional distance will bring reduction to noise levels at bedroom windows. • Add acoustic - absorbing materials to the exterior of west and north facing walls sufficient to drop reflected noise by 10 dB(A) or more. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1. Same as 4.12 Noise - b) Ground borne noise, above FE ® N 0 a c 0 r, rl S 1 1 11 + 111 J 11 I 1 ( 1 ! fl 1 IJ J l i 1 ! 1 1 ! f f f 1 J 1 r F r r r r � r ( 1 1 ! r r ! ! r 1 1 J 1 r � r v N C O C. .a] 4 L v C Q1 U O 0 E N N 0 >Y c 0 N U_ 5 tv a cu w Z 1 l4 i 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 1V 51 11 11 11 1 I 11 I I 11 I 1 11 1 1 II II 11 11 II 1 1 tl t 1 1111 11 1 1 111 1 Ott l 1111 111 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 11 I 1 I1 I �f 11 I 111 II l l 1 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I I I I 1 1 k 1 1 1 11 + 1 1 tl I I 1 1 11 f a I 1 111 + I f i I Ilt i 11 t I V l+ + 1 I I I I 1 1111} r r 1 rlrlr , 1 i r Ir f 111 n 11 , ulrl,t/ uulr u 1 1 t 1 4.16 - Transportation and Traffic Initial Study Alternate Assessment a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness... b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other... c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns... d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature... or incompatible uses... e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant No Impact No Impact No Impact Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Significant Impact 4.16 - Transportation and Traffic Although the city is to be commended in its efforts to analyze the proposed project's impact to the major arterial Seal Beach Blvd. (SBB) as is reflected the Initial Study and accompanying materials. It is unfortunate then, to discover that the study thus undertaken cannot be relied upon for numerous reasons... 1) Guidance and methods drawn from the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, volume 2 specifically limits its applicability to multi -lane highways with signals at least 2 -miles apart on average or two -lane highways with signals or STOP signs at least two miles apart. Volume 3 addresses interrupted flow including on -street pedestrian and bicycle flow (chapters 16 -19). The first is clearly not the case for the subject project. As for the second, there is no evidence in the Initial Study that either pe- destrians, nor bicycles were taken into account. This is especially troubling as high- school students are known to cross at SBB, and both students and customers are known to cross at Rossmoor Center Way (RCW). Impact to both LOS (level -of- service) and queuing data, especially for RCW, must be taken with more than a grain of salt. 2) According to the HCM (chapter 6 and 7), page 6 -26 simulation results, if used, should be compared with observed data collected in the field. The purpose of this activity is to adjust the parameters in the model so that simulation results corre- spond to real -world situations. Trip data collected from LA Fitness facilities in Garden Grove (see bar chart), show a pro- nounced non - uniform distribution throughout the hour which is not surprising because LA Fitness has both scheduled events (sec example table), as well as encourages members to participate in competitive or toumament -style workouts, e.g. basketball. There is no evidence that simulation parameters were so adjusted - leaving the results of SimTmffic, cited in the LSA attachment in doubt. 3) Also, according to the HCM, (page 5 -14) "at time of publication, there was insufficient research to be able to provide pedestrian and bicycle LOS for urban street intersections except for signal controlled intersections and -for pedestrians only - two -way STOP - controlled intersections" Clearly at RCW, a key intersection of the study 4 -way STOP is impacted every time pedestrians cross. 4) The traffic analysis assumptions in Initial Report assumes RCW is a 30 -mph thru -street of three (3) lanes. Attached pho- tos show posted and placarded speed limit at 25 -mph. Attached photos show county and delivery vehicles parked on RCW, funneling traffic down to a lane and a half. Both assumptions presume enforcement that has not been in evidence as of late, and/or change to official speed limit and further cast doubt on study results. 5) Existence of residential gate located north of and between Sprouts loading dock (west) and its front door (east), and which empties onto RCW. As the Condo complex houses 256 units, dozens of vehicles exit, primarily during morning hours, and pose a potential of further blocking westbound traffic as residents attempt to negotiate into either east or west bound lanes. None of the traffic study materials appear to recognize this possibility. 6) Traffic study does not recognize, or acknowledge intersection- blockage events at Internal Driveway and RCW. These oc- cur with and without pedestrian crossing there, as a result cross - walking pedestrians blocking traffic in front of Sprouts. These are then compounded by confusion about whose tutu is next. d) Substantially increased hazards due to a design feature... Residents already encounter a challenge cited in connection with Traffic Study deficiency 5) above, and already encounter both "California Stops," as well as clear runs thru the STOP sign at Internal Driveway and RCW This makes it difficult for gate - exiting residents to judge when it is safe. This hazard will invariably increase as traffic demand destined west of the gate increases due to the project. In addition, the study cites two- car - length queues cast -bound on RCW at the 4 -way STOP. At a level of only 4 car lengths, the east -bound queue there will cause east -bound exiting residents of the condo to block the west -bound lane. Because of the reasons cited above, primarily reasons 2) and 4) this is anticipated to happen. The study does not address this, but a new queue will exist with left -turning traffic in the west bound lane of RCW directly behind the Sprouts store. This queue will occur whenever traffic must wait for right -of -way to turn across the east -bound lane. The east -bound lane will be seeing existing, and an increase, including bursts of cars from new exiting traffic from the althetic center at the West Rd / RCW intersection. At a level of only 3 car lengths, the west -bound queue behind Sprouts will cause west -bound traffic, including exiting residents of the condo, to be blocked, and east -bound traffic condo resi- dents will not be able to see for safe exit. Should an emergency veh. or ambulance be seeking to traverse RCW in either of these instances, it too would be delayed 7 L 4 3 2 1 0 1:54 PM 2:00 PM 2:06 PM 2:12 PM 2:18 PM 2:24 PM 2:30 PM 2:36 PM 2:42 PM 2:48 PM 2:54 PM 3:00 PM GG LA Fitness Vehicle Trips 51112-3 PM i GG LA Fitness Vehicle Trips 51112-3 PM 0 4 O C T m .Q, C W W a T r a ■ 6 N a pp pH O O d x C _ � E m Q f ^ IC f � y m ^ d 0 w $ O e M 0 x a N _ � E m Q f ^ IC f � i rf t. d�. t r. 4 R r�v � �ti. h0 '.�4 ^yc,}s�'.M1•'f�. 4a�Yy, �'T' �3" tr.�lu�.. 4 Ar+K" f a' r i Ck � V_.... ... f: rt ,4 c ssiw i rf t. d�. t r. 4 Conditional Use Permit 15 -7 12411 Seal Beach Blvd ATTACHMENT 7* DRAFT Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of May 18, 2016 *Distributed on June 15, 2016 DRAFT CITY OF SEAL BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING Minutes of May 18, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Vento called the special meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Opening Remarks: Senior Planner Landavazo stated that the Environmental Quality Control Board was holding a special meeting for the purpose of receiving comments on the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) that was available for public review during a twenty day period, from April 28, 2016 through May 18, 2016. Senior Planner Landavazo declared that during the last regular meeting on April 27th staff introduced the IS /MND to the Environmental Quality Control Board so that the board could review the document and provide any comments to staff at tonight's special meeting on May 18, 2016. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Deputy Director of Public Works /City Engineer, Michael Ho, led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members: Vento, Smalewitz, Bennett, Hirsch, Barton Absent: None Staff Present: Jim Basham, Community Development Director Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner Michael Ho, Deputy Director of PW /City Engineer Also Present: Laura Stetson, MIG Representative APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Member Vento moved, second by Smalewitz, to approve the agenda, as presented. AYES: Vento, Smalewitz, Barton, Hirsch, Bennett. NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion Carried: 5 -0 -0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Member Vento opened oral communications Resident 1- Joe Gotlieb stated that he wanted to know why he was made aware of the meeting by his FICA and did not receive notification of the EQCB meeting by mail. Senior Planner Landavazo stated that the EQCB holds public meetings not public hearings. The Municipal Code requires notification to be sent ten days prior to a public hearing but does not require noti- fication prior to a public meeting. Senior Planner Landavazo explained that the meeting agenda was posted in City Hall and on the city's website as required by code and made the document available for public review at City Hall and all three public libraries within the City of Seal Beach. She explained that staff made an additional effort, not required by the Municipal Code, to notify all HOAs in the area surrounding the project area so that they can forward the notification to their respective residents. Emails were sent out to HOAs a week prior to the meeting asking them to notify all residents about the special meeting. Senior Planner Landavazo stated that staff would personally email any residents who would like to be contacted directly with infor- mation about future meetings. Resident 2 - Craig Maunders - Inquired about the process for incorporation of all comments for the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Vento informed the resident that Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, will be presenting this process shortly. Resident 3 - Ron Casey, Rossmoor Community Services Board Member, referred to the traffic analyses completed for this project and agreed with the mitigation to increase /elongate the left - hand turn lane onto Rossmoor Center Way from Seal Beach Blvd. He expressed concerns re- garding the four -way stop sign intersection at Sprouts Market, which is a few feet away from the aforementioned left -hand turn. Mr. Casey suggested that the City create another entrance for the Health Club in order to alleviate the heavy traffic. Resident 4 - Expressed concerns about the number of the parking spaces lost when construct- ing a 37,000 square foot building. He indicated that the number of 40 parking spaces, as stated in the IS /MND document, is inaccurate and requested a confirmation on that information. MIG Representative, Laura Stetson, addressed mence with the project presentation which may Vento agreed and closed Oral Communications. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Vento suggesting that city staff com- answer many of the public's questions. Chair Chair Vento moved, second by Smalewitz, to approve the minutes of June 17, 2015 and April 27, 2016 meetings. AYES: Vento, Smalewitz, Barton, Hirsch, Bennett. NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion Carried: 5 -0 -0 SCHEDULED MATTERS: DISCUSSION: INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS /MND) PREPARED FOR A REQUEST TO RECONSTRUCT 37,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS CENTER WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR CENTER. Assistant Planner Fowler provided a presentation on this item which included a description of the project location, subject site, use of the proposed Health Center, and loss of 40 parking spaces. Planner Fowler reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to take final comments on the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and to ensure that this document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations). MIG Representative Stetson followed with a detailed explanation of the CEQA process for this proposed project. Stetson described that preparation of the Initial Study required an evaluation of a total of 17 potential environmental impact areas for the proposed project. Stetson stated that construction noise and traffic were two areas identified as having potential impact and need of mitigation, which already have city measures in place. She identified the following mitigation: 1. Construction Noise — Mitigation Measure: The contractor shall limit construction activities to reasonable day hours. Construction activities will not be permitted on Sundays. 2. Traffic noise — Mitigation Measure: The contractor shall provide all construction vehicles with mufflers and that they will remain in good operating order at all times. Stetson stated that the Expanded Queuing Analysis, dated April 2016, recommended extending the queuing length of the left -turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto westbound Rossmoor Center Way. She stated that the Expanded Queuing Analysis and Traffic Impact Analyses prepared for the project were completed to the satisfaction of the City Engi- neer. She concluded by confirming that based on the traffic study, prepared by Ken Wilhelm of LSA Associates, there were no other traffic impacts identified and all intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. Member Barton inquired about the timeframe, such as the day and week, during which the traf- fic study was conducted. She also inquired about the exact number of parking spaces for the center. Marty Potts confirmed that the study was done in the peak hours and also that there are more parking spaces now than the code requires. Member Smalewitz requested information on the original EIR, the total number of parking spac- es that were initially assigned to each business at the Shops at Rossmoor. Community Devel- opment Director Basham clarified that an EIR was not prepared when Rossmoor Shopping Cen- ter was constructed. Assistant Planner Fowler explained that the project was analyzed based on the Seal Beach Municipal Code for the entire Shopping center and the center will have a surplus of over 80 parking spaces which complies with the City Municipal Code. Member Hirsch stated his concerns over air quality resulting from a higher volume of traffic gen- erated each day. Although the IS /MND stated that the air quality would not be impacted, mem- ber Hirsch expressed hesitations regarding the criteria of the study. Member Smalewitz inquired about the arrangements made to accommodate employees park- ing. Consultant Stetson stated that city staff evaluated parking to comply with the Municipal Code but further discussion over parking would be under purview of the Planning Commission. Member Smalewitz stated she considers that there is a traffic impact. She stated that residents who live in the area know how impacted Seal Beach Boulevard can get. Member Smalewitz pointed out the Intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Saint Cloud Drive and inquired about the lack of mitigation for this intersection in Appendix B of the Traffic Analyses and Queuing Analysis. LSA Representative Wilhelm stated that all traffic data analysis presented on page 73, Table 21 of the IS /MND document, showed that there is no significant impact presented at the intersection. Mr. Wilhelm explained that each city has an Intersection Level of Service (LOS), ranking anywhere from "A" to "F", just as in school grades "A" being the best and "F" being the worst. The City of Seal Beach's minimum standard for intersection LOS is a "D ", and the LOS for that intersection at Seal Beach Boulevard and Saint Cloud Drive ranks a "B" level. Member Smalewitz inquired about the synchronization of signalized intersections. City Engineer Ho explained that in 2014 the City of Seal Beach received an OCTA grant for traffic optimization and in December 2015 new signal timing was implemented to optimize intersection operation on Seal Beach Blvd. City Engineer Ho further explained that the optimized signal timing would re- service the northbound left -turns onto Rossmoor Center Way and Town Center Way to allow northbound left turns to occur twice every circle and alleviate traffic during periods of heavy queuing such as weekday p.m. peak hour and the Saturday midday peak hour. Member Smalewitz asked what the main access to the Health Center would be and what direc- tion the gym members would primarily travel from. Ken Wilhelm explained that according to the data from traffic analysis, main access to the Health Center would be via Seal Beach Boulevard, 43% traveling from the South and 57% from the North. Chair Vento opened the meeting for public comments. Resident 5 - Deborah Meshidorf of Saint Cloud Drive and Druid Lane, stated that additional ve- hicles on Saint Cloud Drive will make exiting out of their garages very difficult. She also ex- pressed concerns about the prices of the homes in neighborhood going down due to the noise from the increased traffic. Ms. Meshidorf expressed her discontent on the gym's hours of opera- tion being 5:30am till 11 pm, saying that all the cars getting out after 11 pm will be keeping the neighborhoods awake. Resident 6 - Vince Leony asked for clarification of parking spaces lost, stating that a footprint of 37,000 square feet would cover more than 40 parking spaces. Per his knowledge, one parking space takes about 171 square feet, which multiplied by 40, would result in 6,800 square feet total. Marty Potts clarified that indeed the 37,000 square feet does not equal 40 parking spaces. He further explained that the entire parking lot would change from 60 degree parking to 90 de- gree parking by which they would gain additional parking spaces in the surrounding area and would result with a loss of only 40 spaces. Resident 7- Rhonda Bogges, Rossmoor Homeowner Association Member, mentioned that there is already a facility built within the shops at Rossmoor and asked why the applicant could not use that building instead. Marty Potts explained that that building is only 8,000 square feet, as opposed to the needed 37,000 for this project. Resident 8 - Zen Onaza expressed his concerns that the traffic analyses report did not point out the traffic on Montecito Drive, stating that although the majority of traffic is projected to originate from Seal Beach Boulevard, it would not take too long for people to find out that there are other ways /quicker ways to access the Health Center via the back streets. He mentioned that there are a lot of retirement communities in the area and his main concern is that all the retirees would not get their rest and sleep because of the noise. Resident 9 - Sandy Gotlieb came forward with additional noise concerns and suggested that the hours of operation of the Health Club be from 6am to 1 0pm, instead of 5:30am to 11 pm. Resident 10- Joe Gotlieb added to noise concerns from additional vehicles and mechanical equipment such as vents to keep the gym cool at all times. Mr. Gotlieb also asked that the meeting be stopped until the city gets the original EIR for the Shops at Rossmoor or required a new EIR for the entire shopping center. Community Development Director Basham explained that an EIR was not prepared when the center was originally developed and the City cannot re- quire a private property owner to prepare an EIR for an existing permitted development. Resident 11 - Kevin Meyers commented that the condo complexes around the Shops at Rossmoor are using the Rossmoor Center parking lot to park their cars at night. Therefore, building the Health Club on currently used parking spaces would highly impact the parking situa- tion for the condo residents. Resident 12 - Dimitri George shared concerns about traffic increase on smaller streets, such as Montecito Drive, and is not convinced that extending the left -turn lane from Seal Beach Boule- vard onto Rossmoor Center Way will alleviate traffic. Resident 13 - Diana Ortiz, 12200 Montecito Drive, stated that her biggest concern is the four - way stop on Rossmoor Center Way that every parent in that apartment complex is using in the morning to take their kids to school. Ms. Ortiz also stated that there are multiple delivery trucks that currently park behind Sprouts Market, the exact area where the Health Club is projected to be constructed. She stated she is concerned about the future parking location for those delivery trucks and the impacted areas that could suffer due to this change. Resident 14 - Craig Sandberg expressed concerns about the four -way stops at Montecito Drive being backed up due to additional traffic and about the already- existing difficulty to exit their own driveways in that area, considering it being a public safety issue. Resident 15 - Jay Bridges stated that the Traffic Study didn't reflect peak- hours, 5pm -8pm and expressed hesitations about the outcome of the study that showed No Significant Impact. Mr. Bridges also inquired about the location of all the construction trucks and equipment, suggested that the City pay to have an on -site manager to ensure Construction Site Best Management Practices are maintained. Resident 16 - Mark Nitikman, President of HOA at Rossmoor Center, shared two points that he believed should be included in the analysis. The first point is that after constructing the Health Center, the overnight parking used by the condos around the Shopping Center will be prohibit- ed. He stated that currently, 50 -75 cars use that parking each night. The second point was the fact that seniors will be forced to walk longer distances as a result from having to park in the streets. Mr. Nitikman considered these points' traffic issues and life quality issues for seniors. Resident 17 - Jim DiAmbrosio shared his concerns about the parking and stated that residents on smaller streets soon would not be able to park in front of their own homes. Resident 18 - Shelly Sustarsic expressed concerns over noise and disturbance caused by addi- tional traffic and simultaneous departure from the Health Center upon closing hours. Ms. Sus - tarsic also stated that the study report did not address her previous statement. She further stat- ed that she believed the study was inconsistent as it pertains to the direction of travel of future gym members. Resident 19 - Craig Maunders inquired whether there would be a new draft/addendum to the CEQA Document following today's meeting and when would it be available to the public. Com- munity Development Director Basham explained that all comments and concerns received would be gathered to be presented in front of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maunders stated an EIR should have been prepared for the Shops at Rossmoor and inquired why one was not prepared for the original development of the shopping center. Director Basham explained that Staff cannot make such assumptions of past determinations. Resident 14 - Craig Sandberg expressed concerns about the delivery trucks behind Pei Wei causing more traffic congestion when exiting the Shopping Center. Resident 20 - Karen Schultz stated that the intersection near Sprouts Market needs improve- ment and asked for the Board's consideration. Member Smalewitz stated that she believed the IS /MND had not met the requirements of CEQA because it did not analyze the project's potential impacts on the intersection of St. Cloud and Seal Beach Blvd, the intersection of Seal Beach Blvd and Montecito, and the four way stop on Rossmoor Center Way, adjacent to Pei Wei and Sprouts. Member Smalewitz moved, second by Bennett, to find that the IS /MND does not meet the CEQA requirements. AYES: Barton, Bennett, Hirsch, Smalewitz NOES: Vento ABSENT: None STAFF CONCERNS Senior Planner Landavazo informed the Board that a notice was provided to inform the Board that a Joint Meeting with the other Boards, Commissions and Committees was scheduled for June 6, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. to provide a Ralph M. Brown Act Workshop. BOARD CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT With no objections, Chair Vento adjourned the Environmental Quality Control Board meeting at 8:04 p.m.