HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 LA Fitness Seal Beach FINAL IS_June2016_For PC_rev2 (1)
FINAL
Rossmoor Health Club
Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
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
- This document is designed for double-sided printing -
Rossmoor Health Club i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 – Purpose of CEQA ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 – Public Comments ....................................................................................... 2
1.3 – Availability of Materials .............................................................................. 3
2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 5
2.1 – Project Title .............................................................................................. 5
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address .................................................................. 5
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number .............................................................. 5
2.4 – Project Location......................................................................................... 5
2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ........................................................... 5
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation .............................................................. 5
2.7 – Zoning District .......................................................................................... 5
2.8 – Project Description..................................................................................... 5
2.9 – Environmental Setting ................................................................................ 7
2.10 – Required Approvals .................................................................................... 8
2.11 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval Is Required .......................................... 8
3 Determination .................................................................................................... 17
3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................. 17
3.2 – Determination ......................................................................................... 17
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 19
4.1 – Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 19
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................... 22
4.3 – Air Quality .............................................................................................. 24
4.4 – Biological Resources ................................................................................ 29
4.5 – Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 32
4.6 – Geology and Soils .................................................................................... 34
4.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 38
4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................. 41
4.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................... 46
4.10 – Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. 50
4.11 – Mineral Resources.................................................................................... 51
4.12 – Noise ..................................................................................................... 52
4.13 – Population and Housing ............................................................................ 60
4.14 – Public Services ........................................................................................ 61
4.15 – Recreation .............................................................................................. 63
4.16 – Transportation and Traffic ......................................................................... 64
4.17 – Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................... 89
4.18 – Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................ 93
5 References 95
5.1 – List of Preparers ...................................................................................... 95
5.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted ......................................................... 95
6 Summary of Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 97
7 Appendix Materials ............................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX A Roadway Construction Noise Modeling Data .................................. 100
APPENDIX B Traffic Analysis and Queuing Analysis ............................................ 102
APPENDIX C Traffic Impact Analysis .................................................................. 104
Table of Contents
ii Initial Study
List of Tables
Table 1 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status – Orange County ......................................... 25
Table 2 Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) .................................... 26
Table 3 Long-Term Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ....................................................................... 27
Table 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...................................................................... 39
Table 5 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria .......................................................... 55
Table 6 Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria ...................................................... 55
Table 7 Distance to Vibration Receptors .............................................................................. 55
Table 8 Construction Vibration Impacts ............................................................................... 56
Table 9 Seal Beach Operating Conditions for Levels of Service ............................................... 67
Table 10 ICU Significance Thresholds .................................................................................. 67
Table 11 ICU Methodology Significance Thresholds ............................................................... 67
Table 12 Level of Service and Flow Density ......................................................................... 68
Table 13 Existing (2014) Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................ 68
Table 14 Existing (2014) Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary ................................ 69
Table 15 Health Club Trip Generation ................................................................................ 69
Table 16 Unoccupied Space within the Shops at Rossmoor Trip Generation .............................. 70
Table 17 Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary 70
Table 18 Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary .... 71
Table 19 Existing (2014) Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 71
Table 20 Existing (2014) Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 72
Table 21 Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service Summary ........................................................................................................... 73
Table 22 Project Completion Year (2016) w/ Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary ........................................................................................................... 73
Table 23 Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Intersection Level Of Service Summary ............................................................................ 74
Table 24 Project Completion (2016) with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway
Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................... 74
Table 25 Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service Summary ............................................................................................................. 76
Table 26 Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary ............................................................................................................. 76
Table 27 Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Intersection Level of Service Summary ............................................................................... 77
Table 28 Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Roadway Level of Service Summary ................................................................................... 77
Table 29 Site Access Queuing Summary .............................................................................. 79
Table 30 Weekday Parking Utilization Summary ................................................................... 82
Table 31 Weekend Parking Utilization Summary ................................................................... 82
Table 32 Future Weekday Parking Demand .......................................................................... 86
Table 33 Future Weekend Parking Demand .......................................................................... 87
Rossmoor Health Club iii
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Context Vicinity Map ................................................................................. 9
Exhibit 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................ 11
Exhibit 3 Floor Plan........................................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 4 Project Elevations ............................................................................................... 15
Exhibit 5 Construction Equipment Noise .............................................................................. 58
Exhibit 6 Recommended Turn Pocket Extension .................................................................... 81
Exhibit 7 Existing Parking Zones ........................................................................................ 84
Exhibit 8 Future Parking Zones .......................................................................................... 85
Table of Contents
iv Initial Study
Rossmoor Health Club 1
1 Introduction
The City of Seal Beach (Lead Agency) has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
prepared by CPT Shops @ Rossmoor, LLC (project proponent) for the development of a health
club on the south side of Rossmoor Center Way, west of Seal Beach Boulevard. Approval of the
applications 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.).
This Initial Study has been prepared to assess the short-term, long-term, and cumulative
environmental impacts that could result from the proposed health club. This report has been
prepared to comply with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which sets forth the
required contents of an Initial Study. These include:
A description of the project, including the location of the project (see Section 2)
Identification of the environmental setting (see Section 2.9)
Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other methods,
provided that entries on the checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that
there is some evidence to support the entries (see Section 4)
Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any (see Section 4)
Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other
applicable land use controls (see Section 4.10)
The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial
Study (see Section 5)
1.1 – Purpose of CEQA
The body of state law known as CEQA was originally enacted in 1970 and has been amended a
number of times since. The legislative intent of these regulations is established in Section 21000
of the California Public Resources Code, as follows:
“The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is
a matter of statewide concern.
b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing
to the senses and intellect of man.
c) There is a need to understand the relationship between the maintenance of high-quality
ecological systems and the general welfare of the people of the state, including their
enjoyment of the natural resources of the state.
d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the
government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health
and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent
such thresholds being reached.
e) Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.
f) The interrelationship of policies and practices in the management of natural resources and
waste disposal requires systematic and concerted efforts by public and private interests to
enhance environmental quality and to control environmental pollution.
g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate
activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the
quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given
Introduction
2 Initial Study
to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living
environment for every Californian.
The Legislature further finds and declares that it is the policy of the State to:
h) Develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future, and take all action
necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of the state.
i) Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water,
enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom
from excessive noise.
j) Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man's activities, insure that fish and
wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future
generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major
periods of California history.
k) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a
decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding
criterion in public decisions.
l) Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony
to fulfill the social and economic requirements of present and future generations.
m) Require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to
protect environmental quality.
n) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic
and technical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and
costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment.”
A concise statement of legislative policy, with respect to public agency consideration of projects
for some form of approval, is found in Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code, quoted below:
“The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should
not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public
agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific
economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such
mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant
effects thereof.”
1.2 – Public Comments
Comments from all agencies and individuals are invited regarding the information contained in
this Initial Study. Such comments should explain any perceived deficiencies in the assessment of
impacts, identify the information that is purportedly lacking in the Initial Study, or indicate where
the information may be found. All comments on the Initial Study are to be submitted to:
Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(562) 431-2527
clandavazo@sealbeachca.gov
Introduction
Rossmoor Health Club 3
Following a 20-day period of circulation and review of the Initial Study, all comments will be
considered by the City of Seal Beach prior to adoption.
1.3 – Availability of Materials
All materials related to the preparation of this Initial Study are available for public review. To
request an appointment to review these materials, please contact:
Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(562) 431-2527
Introduction
4 Initial Study
Rossmoor Health Club 5
2 Project Description
2.1 – Project Title
Rossmoor Health Club
2.2 – Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Seal Beach
Department of Community Development
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
2.3 – Contact Person and Phone Number
Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
(562) 431-2527
2.4 – Project Location
The project encompasses a portion of the existing The Shops at Rossmoor shopping center,
located at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach (APN 086-492-079). The project
site is located on the northwestern most portion of the shopping center parking lot on Rossmoor
Center Way between Seal Beach Boulevard and Montecito Road (see Exhibit 1, Regional Context
and Vicinity Map). The site is bounded by residential uses to the west and north, a Sprouts
grocery store and Marshall’s department store to the east, and the retail stores Home Goods and
PetSmart to the south (see Exhibit 2, Site Plan).
2.5 – Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
CPT Shops at Rossmoor, LLC
Two Seaport Lane
Boston, MA 02210-2021
2.6 – General Plan Land Use Designation
Commercial General
2.7 – Zoning District
GC – General Commercial
2.8 – Project Description
The proposed project includes the construction of a 37,000-square-foot private health club on
approximately 5.28 acres within the existing Shops at Rossmoor retail development (see Exhibit
2, Site Plan).
Project Description
6 Initial Study
Project Design
The proposed project is 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 (see
Exhibit 3, Floor Plan). Through previous entitlements acquired by the Shops at Rossmoor from the
City, the commercial center currently has 2,068 existing parking spaces. With completion of the
proposed project, the total number of parking spaces in the center will be reduced to 1,981
spaces. With the proposed project a total of 1,645 spaces are required at the Shops at
Rossmoor. Thus, adequate parking supply within the Shops at Rossmoor will be provided.
Currently, the immediate vicinity of the Shops at Rossmoor serving the site has 445 parking stalls
that serve the entire shopping center. Development of the project would result in a net decrease
of approximately 40 parking stalls, leaving 405 parking stalls at project completion. Because the
project would be constructed on an existing parking lot, construction of the health club would
require the removal of 87,500 square feet of existing asphalt surfaces, installation of 56,800
square feet of new asphalt surface, application of 119,065 square feet of slurry fill on the existing
undisturbed asphalt, and restriping the entire 175,865-square-foot parking lot once the health
club center is constructed. 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 Exhibit 4, Project Elevations), the 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. An internally illuminated sign with 40-inch-high letters will adorn
the building façade on the south side. 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 the illuminated sign. 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.
Circulation
Vehicular access to the health club would be provided from Rossmoor Center Way via two existing
driveways: a 40-foot-wide driveway just west of the proposed project site (which will be
converted to a 36-foot driveway to accommodate proposed new parking), and a 36-foot-wide
driveway just east of the proposed project site. Both driveways currently provide ingress and
egress in a north-south direction into and out of the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center onto
Rossmoor Center Way. Entrance to the site is also provided via a 44-foot-wide entrance on Seal
Beach Boulevard. All three of these driveways will provide direct access into the center of the
project site for both future users of the site and emergency services. In its existing condition, the
40-foot-wide driveway (west of the proposed health club) is flanked on the west side by a
sidewalk that runs for 350 feet parallel to the drive aisle. This barrier forms an enclosed area west
of the proposed project site. Residents of the condominiums to the west and north use have been
observed to park in this area, as well as the proposed project site. However, parking by residents
is not authorized. Easier access to this area will be provided via a 36-foot wide access cut in the
existing curb barrier.
Additional curb barriers would be provided within the site to provide a separation between north
and south sections of the parking lot. The shopping center operator proposes this configuration to
encourage patrons visiting the Home Goods and PetSmart retail stores to park close to those
locations and visitors to the health club to park close to that use.
Project Description
Rossmoor Health Club 7
Utilities
The site is fully served by utilities. An eight-inch water main runs west along Rossmoor Center
Way before turning south under the existing 40-foot-wide driveway east of the project site. This
main also serves the adjacent condominium development. Project construction would necessitate
the capping of the existing water main under the proposed project site, extending the main under
the 40-foot-wide driveway farther south, and constructing a new eight-inch main to run west from
the driveway approximately 100 feet south and perpendicular to the existing main. Lateral
connections would be made to this new water main.
Project Operation
The health club would provide membership-based fitness services, including access to exercise
equipment, group fitness classes, and personal fitness training. 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.
Off-Site Improvements
A traffic analysis was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. to identify any potential traffic and parking
impacts resulting from the development of the proposed health club. The traffic analysis found
that all study area facilities are anticipated to operate at satisfactory conditions per City
standards. However, the analysis did find that the northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection
of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way currently experiences queuing issues and
would require improvements. The intersection is bounded by a landscaped median along Seal
Beach Boulevard and a southbound left-turn pocket that provides access to the Target shopping
center southeast of the intersection. The northbound left-turn movement currently experiences
queuing that extends past the existing left-turn pocket during periods of peak demand.
Improvements to the existing configuration is proposed to handle additional queuing that results
from the project. This issue and improvements are discussed in Section 4.16 of this Initial Study.
Project Construction
Project construction is anticipated to begin in late 2016 or early 2017, with completion by mid-
2017. Construction would require demolition of existing asphalt paving on the project site.
Construction program defaults were used for air quality and greenhouse gas emissions for a
conservative estimate of timeframes and resulting emissions. The default construction schedule is
as follows:
Phase Total Days
Demolition 20
Site Preparation 10
Grading 20
Building Construction 63
Paving 20
Architectural Coating 20
2.9 – Environmental Setting
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 project site is surrounded by commercial and residential land uses, and the
area is completely urbanized. Nominal ornamental landscaping is located on the existing parking
area. The project site sits at an elevation of approximately 16 feet above sea level on land that
slopes gently in a westerly direction.
Project Description
8 Initial Study
The proposed project site currently is an asphalt parking lot that provides parking for the Shops
at Rossmoor shopping center. The Shops at Rossmoor is located in the City of Seal Beach.
Surrounding uses include single-family residential, multifamily, and commercial.
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction General Plan Designation Zoning District Existing Land Use
Project
Site Commercial General GC – General Commercial Parking
North Residential High Density RHD-46 – Residential High
Density Apartments
South Commercial General GC – General Commercial Home Goods/PetSmart
East Commercial General GC – General Commercial Sprouts/Marshalls
West Residential High Density RHD-46 – Residential High
Density Apartments
2.10 – Required Approvals
The City of Seal Beach is the only authority having jurisdiction. The proposed project requires the
following approvals:
Development Review for a health and exercise membership club
Use Permit for operation of the proposed health club use
2.11 – Other Public Agency Whose Approval Is Required
None
Project Description
Rossmoor Health Club 9
Exhibit 1
Regional Context Vicinity Map
Project Description
10 Initial Study
Whittier LA Fitness 11
Exhibit 2
Site Plan
Project Description
12 Initial Study
Rossmoor Health Club 13
Exhibit 3
Floor Plan
Project Description
14 Initial Study
Rossmoor Health Club 15
Exhibit 4
Project Elevations
Project Description
16 Initial Study
17 Initial Study
3 Determination
3.1 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
□Aesthetics □Agriculture Resources □Air Quality
□Biological Resources □Cultural Resources □Geology /Soils
□Greenhouse Gas
Emissions □Hazards & Hazardous
Materials □Hydrology / Water
Quality
□Land Use / Planning □Mineral Resources □Noise
□Population / Housing □Public Services □Recreation
□Transportation/Traffic □Utilities / Service
Systems □Mandatory Findings
of Significance
3.2 – Determination
□I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□I find that the proposed project MAY have a ‘potentially significant impact’ or
‘potentially significant unless mitigated’ impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Name: Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
Date Laura Stetson, AICP, Principal FOR
6/9/2016
Determination
18 Initial Study
19 Initial Study
4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
4.1 – Aesthetics
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? □ □ □
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within view from a
state scenic highway?
□ □ □
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
□ □ □
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
□ □ □
This aesthetics impact analysis is 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.
a) No Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure
may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e.,
development on a scenic hillside). The City of Seal Beach General Plan does not designate any
locations within the City as a scenic vista. However, the County of Orange has designated Pacific
Coast Highway as an “Urbanscape Corridor.” Urbanscape Corridors, as defined by the County, are
routes that traverse an urban area with a defined visual corridor that offers a view or attractive
and exciting urban scene, and that has recreational value for its visual relief as a result of nature
or the designed efforts of man.1
The proposed project is located on a developed site within a fully urbanized area visually
dominated by commercial land uses and surface street features. This site is not considered to be
1 City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element. pp. LU-64. December 2003.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
20 Initial Study
within or to comprise a portion of a scenic vista as defined by the City and the County. The
project is located approximately two miles from Pacific Coast Highway. Development of the health
club with the proposed two-story building, parking, and accessory landscaping elements would
have no effect on a scenic vista. The proposed development is generally consistent in type and
scale with the existing and planned surrounding development. No impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to a designated State Scenic Highway or eligible
State Scenic Highway, as identified on the California Scenic Highway Mapping System.2 Thus,
the proposed project would not damage the integrity of existing visual resources or historic
buildings located along a State Scenic Highway. The City’s General Plan does not identify any
local scenic roadways within the City limits. The County of Orange has designated Pacific Coast
Highway as an “Urbanscape Corridor.” However, the proposed project is not located in the
immediate vicinity of this Urbanscape Corridor. The project site is currently developed with
parking used for the Shops at Rossmoor development and contains no scenic resources. No
impact on scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic Highway, would result. Therefore, no impact to scenic resources
visible from a State Scenic Highway would occur.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project could result in a
significant impact if it resulted in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. Degradation of visual character or quality is defined by
substantial changes to the existing site appearance through construction of structures such that
they are poorly designed or conflict with the site’s existing surroundings.
Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term impacts to the existing visual
character and quality of the area. Construction activities would require the use of equipment and
storage of materials within the project site. However, a construction fence will be erected around
the site to avoid any temporary visual impact. Project construction would result in the removal of
decorative planter trees and asphalt pavement. The project would include ornamental trees and
bushes of varying species around the edge of the building. A total of 16,795 square feet of
landscaped area would be provided to replace any landscaping removed.
Construction of the proposed buildings on the developed site would alter the existing visual
character of the site. Upon project completion, the proposed building would consist of a single
building, containing one story and a mezzanine, constructed adjacent to Rossmoor Center Way to
the north. The building height would vary due to parapets and variation in roof level (see Exhibit
4, Project Elevations). However, no part of the building would exceed 35 feet in height. The
proposed project is zoned General Commercial, which has a maximum building height of 35 feet.
The proposed building is 24 feet in height, with accents up to 35 feet tall.
The proposed project is similar in use and building type to the existing surrounding buildings in
the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center. The immediate surroundings along Seal Beach
Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way are occupied by commercial uses. To the west and east are
high-density residential units.
The design of the health club 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
2 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System: Los Angeles County.
Accessed March 2015.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 21
aluminum. Painted plaster and simulated wood paneling would also be used. An internally
illuminated sign with 40-inch-high letters would adorn the south building façade. 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 the illuminated sign. The molding
along the top of the building and arcade features would be finished with decorative cornices.
Images portraying people engaging in physical fitness activities are proposed on rear and side
building elevations.
The project proposes landscaping features around the sides and rear of the building and along
Rossmoor Center Way. Project plans include additional landscaping and shade trees within the
reconfigured parking lot. This landscaping would visually break up the expanse of asphalt. The
proposed project would maintain the visual urban character of the project vicinity and enhance
the existing parking lot with landscaping and a building compatible with surrounding
development. With specified design features included, project impact would be less than
significant on the visual character of the site and surroundings.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely
impact night-time views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be
caused from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal)
can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially
dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists).
Lighting sources adjacent to this site include freestanding streetlights, light fixtures on buildings,
pole-mounted lights, traffic signals, and vehicle headlights. The proposed project would include
exterior parking lot and security lighting and building interior lighting. However, only outdoor
lighting could have any effect on neighboring land uses since interior lighting would be reduced by
tinted windows. The proposed project would be required to conform to existing City lighting
standards for commercial uses which require lighting to be directed downward and away from
adjacent properties. Light impacts would be less than significant with compliance with City
standards.
Sources of daytime glare are typically concentrated in commercial areas, such as in the vicinity of
the project site, which is one of the City’s primary commercial areas, and are often associated
with retail uses. 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
façade 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.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
22 Initial Study
4.2 – Agriculture and Forest Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? □ □ □
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104 (g))?
□ □ □
d) Result in loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
□ □ □
a-b) No Impact. The proposed project would be located in a fully developed, commercial,
urbanized area that does not contain agriculture or forest uses. The map of Important Farmland
in California (2010) prepared by the Department of Conservation does not identify the project site
as being Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.3 No Williamson
3 California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2008. The City of Seal
Beach, including the project site, is indicated within “Area Not Mapped” in 2010 maps of Orange County.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 23
Act contracts are active for the project site.4 The property is zoned General Commercial, which is
not intended for agricultural uses. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) identifies forest land as “land that can
support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural
conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber,
aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.”
The project site and surrounding properties are not currently being managed or used for forest
land as identified in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). The USDA Forest Service
vegetation maps for the project site identify it as urban type, indicating that it is not capable of
growing industrial wood tree species.5 The project site has already been graded and developed
with commercial uses, with no substantial vegetation onsite, with the exception of limited
ornamental landscaping. Therefore, development of this project would have no impact to any
timberland zoning.
d) No Impact. The project site is already graded land with existing development and limited
ornamental landscaping; thus, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use as a result of this project. No impact would occur.
e) No Impact. The project site is a developed site within an urban environment and is
surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The project would not encroach onto agricultural
land nor encourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. None of the
surrounding sites contain existing forest uses. Development of this project would not change the
existing environment in a manner that will result in the conversion of forest land to a non-forest
use. No impact would occur.
4 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program, 2007.
5 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the USDA Forest Service. California Land Cover
Mapping and Monitoring Program (LCMMP), Vegetation GIS files. Pacific Southwest Region.
EvegTile51A__02_03_v2. 2007
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
24 Initial Study
4.3 – Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? □ □ □
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
□ □ □
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
□ □ □
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations? □ □ □
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people? □ □ □
a) No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project conflicts with or
obstructs implementation of the South Coast Air Basin 2007 Air Quality Management Plan.
Conflicts and obstructions that hinder implementation of the AQMP can delay efforts to meet
attainment deadlines for criteria pollutants and maintaining existing compliance with applicable
air quality standards. Pursuant to the methodology provided in Chapter 12 of the 1993 SCAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency with the South Coast Air Basin 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) is affirmed when a project (1) does not increase the frequency or
severity of an air quality standards violation or cause a new violation and (2) is consistent with
the growth assumptions in the AQMP.6 Consistency review is presented below.
6 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 25
(1) The project would result in short-term construction and long-term pollutant emissions that are
less than the CEQA significance emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as
demonstrated in Section 4.3 et seq. of this Initial Study; therefore, the project would not result in
an increase in the frequency or severity of any air quality standards violation and would not cause
a new air quality standard violation.
(2) The CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that consistency with AQMP growth assumptions
must be analyzed for new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and significant
projects. Significant projects include airports, electrical generating facilities, petroleum and gas
refineries, designation of oil drilling districts, water ports, solid waste disposal sites, and off-shore
drilling facilities. This project, construction of a health club facility, does not involve a General
Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and is not considered a significant project.
Based on the consistency analysis presented above, the proposed project would not conflict with
the AQMP; no impact will occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact if project-related
emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related
emissions would substantially contribute to existing or project air quality violations. The proposed
project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, where efforts to attain state and federal air
quality standards are governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Both the State of California and the federal government have established health-based ambient
air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants (known as “criteria pollutants”). These
pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), inhalable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), fine particulate
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The state has also
established AAQS for additional pollutants. The AAQS are designed to protect the health and
welfare of the populace within a reasonable margin of safety. Where the state and federal
standards differ, California AAQS are more stringent than the national AAQS.
Air pollution levels are measured at monitoring stations located throughout the air basin. Areas
that are in nonattainment with respect to federal or state AAQS are required to prepare plans and
implement measures that will bring the region into attainment. Table 1 (South Coast Air Basin
Attainment Status – Orange County) summarizes the attainment status in the project area for the
criteria pollutants. Discussion of potential impacts related to short-term construction impacts and
long-term area source and operational impacts are presented below.
Table 1
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status – Orange County
Pollutant Federal State
O3 (1-hr) N/A Nonattainment
O3 (8-hr) Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Nonattainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb Nonattainment Nonattainment
Sources: CARB 2011, U.S. EPA 2012
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
26 Initial Study
Construction Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 was utilized to estimate
emissions from the proposed construction activities. CalEEMod default construction phase lengths
were utilized. The maximum (summer or winter) results of the analysis are summarized in Table
2 (Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions). The model indicates that no criteria
pollutants would exceed the daily emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD; therefore,
construction impacts would be less than significant.
Table 2
Unmitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Year ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2016 68.99 54.73 42.27 0.05 21.21 12.69
Winter 2016 69.00 54.74 42.18 0.05 21.21 12.69
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potential Impact? No No No No No No
Source: MIG 2015
Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic compounds
Operational Emissions
Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions would result from the operation of the health club.
Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and
operational emissions. Operational emissions would result from automobile and other vehicle
sources associated with daily trips to and from the proposed health club. The CalEEMod modeling
program was utilized to estimate mobile source emissions. Trip generation is based on the traffic
analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.7 Area source emissions are the combination of many
small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of
consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of the proposed structure.
Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. Emissions from area
sources were estimated using CalEEMod using program default values for area and energy
demand emissions. Operational emissions are summarized in Table 3 (Long-Term Daily
Emissions). Long-term emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds established by SCAQMD;
impacts would be less than significant.
7 LSA Associates, Inc. Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis. September 2015.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 27
Table 3
Long-Term Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Area Sources 4.85 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Demand 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Sources 3.74 8.49 35.86 0.08 5.64 1.59
Summer Total 8.61 8.71 36.09 0.09 5.66 1.60
Winter
Area Sources 4.85 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Demand 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Sources 3.89 8.90 36.39 0.08 5.65 1.59
Winter Total 8.77 9.12 36.59 0.08 5.66 1.60
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Potential Impact? No No No No No No
Source: MIG 2015
Note: Volatile organic compounds are measured as reactive organic compounds
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative short-term, construction-related emissions and
long-term, operational emissions from the project would not contribute considerably to any
potential cumulative air quality impact because short-term project and operational emissions
would not exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. As is required of the proposed project, other
concurrent construction projects and operations in the region would be required to implement
standard air quality regulations and mitigation pursuant to State CEQA requirements. Such
measures include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires daily watering to limit dust
and particulate matter emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population
that are most susceptible to poor air quality, such as children, the elderly, the sick, and athletes
who perform outdoors. Land uses associated with sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, outdoor athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities,
rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest land uses that
considered sensitive receptors are the residential dwelling units located adjacent to the project
site to the north and west. No schools are located within a quarter-mile of the project site. The
proposed health club would not generate toxic pollutant emissions because the proposed fitness
and gymnasium uses are characterized as typical commercial uses that do not produce such
emissions. The proposed health club, therefore, would have a less than significant impact on
sensitive receptors relating to toxic pollutant emissions.
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on
major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hotspots have the potential for violation of state
and federal CO standards at study area intersections, even if the broader Basin is in attainment
for federal and state levels. The potential for violation of state and federal CO standards at study
area intersections and exposure to sensitive receptors at those intersections is addressed using
the methodology outlined in the California Department of Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol. Section numbers for the CO Protocol are provided in parenthesis for ease of
reference.
In general, SCAQMD and the California Department of Transportation Project-Level Carbon
Monoxide Protocol recommend analyzing CO hotspots when a project has the potential to result in
higher CO concentrations within the region and increase traffic congestion at an intersection
operating at level of service (LOS) D or worse by more than two percent.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
28 Initial Study
There has been a decline in CO emissions over the past two decades even though vehicle miles
traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. Three major control programs have
contributed to the reduced per vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner-burning fuels,
and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
Local impacts from the project need to be examined because the project is not exempt from
emissions analysis as defined by the CO Protocol (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.9). According to the CO
Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they significantly increase the percentage of vehicles
in cold start modes (by two percent or more), significantly increase traffic volumes (by five
percent or more) over existing volumes, or reduce average speeds on uninterrupted roadway
segments (increase delays at intersections for interrupted roadway segments) (4.7.1). Based on
the project traffic analysis that identifies net traffic volume changes between the existing parking
use and the proposed health club, the proposed project would not increase vehicles operating in
cold start mode in the morning, evening, or Saturday peak hours by more than two percent at
any of traffic study intersections; therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors due to localized CO
emissions would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor
complaints include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain
industrial operations (such as manufacturing uses that produce chemicals, paper, etc.). Odors are
typically associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum
products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as
sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed health club does not include any of the
above noted uses or process; no impact would occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 29
4.4 – Biological Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ □
b) Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
□ □ □
c) Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
□ □ □
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
□ □ □
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
□ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
30 Initial Study
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □
a) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with an asphalt parking lot associated
with the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center. A number of ornamental trees exist in planters
throughout the parking lot. The ornamental trees do not support habitat of any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site is not identified as
critical habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species.8 Considering the highly developed nature
of the project site and surrounding areas, the probability of existence of designated species under
the federal Endangered Species Act or California Special Concern Species is very low. The
proposed project would, therefore, not have a substantial adverse effect on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Considering the
lack of habitat on the property, no impacts to wildlife species of concern would occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is located on land that has been previously developed in a
primarily commercial portion of the City. The site has been graded and developed, with limited
landscaping consisting of non-native, ornamental trees. The site is entirely paved. There is no
riparian habitat onsite. As such, no impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural habitat
would occur.
c) No Impact. According to the federal National Wetlands Inventory, the project site does
not contain any wetlands;9 furthermore, the proposed project would not disturb any offsite
wetlands, as no wetlands are adjacent to the project site. (See Section 4.9 for discussion of
project drainage features.) There is no vegetation or on-site water features indicative of
potential wetlands. No impact would occur.
d) No Impact. The project site is currently developed with surface parking and is surrounded
by commercial and residential development, preventing the use of the site and surrounding
area as a wildlife corridor. The project site contains limited ornamental vegetation in the form of
planter trees, in the context of a completely urbanized setting located along one of the City’s
major commercial thoroughfares. There are no substantial vegetated areas or water bodies
located on site. The project site does not provide for the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife. No impact would occur.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Seal Beach has a tree ordinance (Municipal
Code Chapter 9.40) that regulates the planting, trimming, and removal of trees on City
property. Trees on private property are not regulated. The small ornamental trees located in
planters throughout the parking lot will be removed to facilitate construction of the health club
and associated parking improvements. The proposed project would include landscaping and
ornamental trees around the perimeter of the building and in proposed new parking lot
8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species.
<http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/> [Accessed March 2015].
9 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
<http://107.20.228.18/Wetlands/WetlandsMapper.html#> [Accessed March 2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 31
planters. The project would not affect any other natural biological resources; therefore, the
project would not result in any conflicts with local or other policies or standards to protect
such resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) No Impact. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan areas 10 or any Natural Community
Conservation Plan areas 11 apply to the project site. No impact would occur.
10 US Fish & Wildlife Services. Habitat Conservation Plans: Summary Report.
<http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html > [Accessed March 2015].
11 California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Community Conservation Planning: Status of NCCP
Planning Efforts. <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/nccp/> [Accessed March 2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
32 Initial Study
4.5 – Cultural Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in '15064.5? □ □ □
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
'15064.5?
□ □ □
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? □ □ □
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? □ □ □
a) No Impact. This property does not satisfy any of the criteria for a historic resource defined in
Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed property has been previously
disturbed and currently is used as surface parking for the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center. No
known historically or culturally significant resources, structures, buildings, or objects are located
on the project site. As such, the proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource, and impacts to historic resources are not anticipated. No
impact would occur.
b-c) Less Than Significant Impact. The property is a previously developed site in a fully
urbanized area. According to the City’s General Plan, Anaheim Bay, the San Gabriel Estuary, and
the Seal Beach area have supported several cultures over the past 10,000 years. Prehistoric
occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Tongva (Gabrielino) Native Americans,
who inhabited much of northern Orange County. Tongva coastal villages have been identified in
Long Beach, Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa. Identified within Seal Beach, a
Tongva community named Motuuchey, also known as “El Piojo” (The Louse), was located at the
former Anaheim landing area. Identified archaeological resources within the City of Seal Beach are
primarily located on the Naval Weapons Station, the Hellman Ranch property, and potentially the
Boeing property.12
No known archaeological or paleontological sites are documented within the Rossmoor Center
planning area. The potential for uncovering such significant resources at the project site during
construction activities is considered remote given that no such resources have been discovered
during prior development activity within the area, there are no unique geological resources on or
12 City of Seal Beach. General Plan: Cultural Resources Element. P. CR-2. December 2003.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 33
near the project site, and the fact that the site has been significantly disturbed in the past for
construction of the existing development. Only minor excavation requirements into fill materials of
this previously developed site would be necessary; therefore, it is considered unlikely that
archeological or paleontological resources would be found.
In accordance with standard City procedures, a halt-work condition would be in place in the
unlikely event that archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction.
The contractor would be required to halt work in the immediate area of the find and to retain a
professional archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to examine the materials to determine
whether they are a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the State
CEQA Statutes. If this determination is positive, the scientifically consequential information must
be fully recovered by the archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, consistent with standard
City protocol. As such, impacts on archeological and/or paleontological impacts would be less than
significant with adherence to existing standards and regulations.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. It is unlikely that human remains could be uncovered during
grading operations, considering that the project site was previously disturbed during construction
of the Shops at Rossmoor shopping center. Nonetheless, should suspected human remains be
encountered, the contractor shall be required to notify the County Coroner in accordance with
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, who must then determine whether the
remains are of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of a supervising archaeologist,
determines that the remains are or appear to be of a Native American, he/she would be required
to contact the Native American Heritage Commission for further investigations and proper
recovery of such remains, if necessary. Through this existing regulatory procedure, impacts to
human remains would be avoided. Impact would be less than significant with application of
existing regulations.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
34 Initial Study
4.6 – Geology and Soils
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
□ □ □
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □
iv) Landslides? □ □ □
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil? □ □ □
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
□ □ □
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1997),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
□ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 35
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
□ □ □
a.i) No Impact. Although the project site is located in seismically active Southern California,
according to the California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the Los
Alamitos quadrangle, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.13 The
nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately two miles
southwest of the project site. No impact would occur.
a.ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be subject to ground shaking
impacts should a major earthquake occur in the future. Potential impacts include injury or loss of
life and property damage. The project site is located within proximity to the Newport-Inglewood
Fault. Significant ground shaking may occur if an earthquake were to occur along that fault line.
Other local faults can also cause significant groundshaking. Other nearby faults which present
seismic risks include the Cabrillo and Palos Verdes faults.14
The project site is subject to strong seismic ground shaking, as are virtually all lands in Southern
California. The proposed building would be required to be designed consistent with seismic design
criteria of the California Building Code (CBC) and the project-specific design requirements of the
project geotechnical report 15 The project geotechnical report recommends site class designation D
for seismic design of the proposed building, given the predominance of stiff soils located on the
project site. The 2013 CBC (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Part 2) contains seismic
safety provisions purposed to prevent building collapse during a design earthquake. Adherence to
these requirements will reduce the potential of the building from collapsing during an earthquake,
thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. The recommendations of the geotechnical report would
be implemented during preparation of construction drawings for review and approval of the City.
Adherence to existing regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, and death; impacts due to
strong ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs when soil
undergoes transformation from a solid state to a liquefied condition due to the effects of
increased pore-water pressure. This typically occurs where susceptible soils (particularly the
medium sand to silt range) are located over a high groundwater table. Affected soils lose all
strength during liquefaction and foundation failure can occur.
According to the Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Los Alamitos 7.5-minute quadrangle, the site is
located in Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction.16 This indicates that the area has been
subject to historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater
conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined
13 California State Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone Maps.
14 City of Seal Beach. General Plan Safety Element, 2003. p. S-33.
15 Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Health Club Shops at Rossmoor.
January 5, 2014.
16 California State Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey, Seismic Hazard Zones. Los
Alamitos Quadrangle, March 25, 1999.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
36 Initial Study
in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required. During geotechnical investigation of
the site, groundwater was measured at a depth of 12 feet. However, the report found that the
majority of the clays found on site do not exhibit a potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction
potential is not considered to be a design issue at this site; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
a.iv) Less than Significant Impact. Structures built below or on slopes subject to failure or
landslides may expose people and structures to harm. The project site topography is generally
flat. The project geotechnical report concluded that because the on-site soils are predominantly
cohesive (silts and clays) or medium dense, silty sands, mitigation of landslide hazards is not
necessary for the site. The geotechnical report noted that some slope stability problems are
expected in steep, unbraced excavations. Deeper excavations may require external support such
as shoring or bracing. Grading and construction would be performed in compliance with State and
local codes and the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Topsoil is used to cover surface areas for the establishment
and maintenance of vegetation due to its high concentrations of organic matter and
microorganisms. Little, if any, native topsoil is likely to occur on site since the site is covered with
asphalt. During project construction, fill materials will be over-excavated to reveal underlying
soils within the building footprint area. The project has the potential to expose surficial soils to
wind and water erosion during construction activities. Wind erosion will be minimized through soil
stabilization measures required by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
403 (Fugitive Dust), such as daily watering. Water erosion will be prevented through the City’s
standard erosion control practices required pursuant to the California Building Code and the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), such as silt fencing or sandbags.
Following project construction, the site would be covered completely by paving, structures, and
landscaping. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of
existing regulations.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts related to liquefaction and landslides are discussed
above in Section 4.6.a. Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to
liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake
shaking combined. Such movement can occur on slope gradients of as little as one degree.
Lateral spreading typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.
Lateral spreading of the ground surface during a seismic activity usually occurs along the weak
shear zones within a liquefiable soil layer and has been observed to generally take place toward a
free face (i.e. retaining wall, slope, or channel) and to lesser extent on ground surfaces with a
very gentle slope. Due to the absence of any substantial change in grade on the project site, the
potential for lateral spread occurring is considered to be minimal. The project-specific
geotechnical report concludes that site soils would be capable of supporting proposed structures
after grading and compaction. The project is required to be constructed in accordance with the
CBC, which specifies the removal of fill materials at least two feet below existing grade or planned
pad grade, and at least one foot below the bottom of foundations and floor slab due to the
presence of variable strength characteristics of the near surface onsite soils, so as to reduce any
potential property damage from ground failure or soil instability. The CBC includes a requirement
that any City-approved recommendations contained in the soil report be made conditions of the
building permit. Based on the considerations of the project geotechnical report, soils can be
prepared to maintain stability sufficient to support the proposed project. The recommendations of
the geotechnical report will be implemented through the City’s routine plan check and permitting
processes. Impact would be less than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 37
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The CBC requires special design considerations for
foundations of structures built on soils with expansion indices greater than 20. The geotechnical
report included testing of site soil samples within the proposed building footprint for expansion
potential. The result of the geotechnical report expansion index soil sample test indicated that
near surface sample soils had a low expansion potential. The CBC provides several options to
mitigate and design for expansive soils. The geotechnical engineer for the project indicates that
given the tested on-site soils’ low expansion potential, expansive soils could be addressed and
any hazards removed by stabilization. Compliance with CBC requirements would limit hazards
related to expansive soil to less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
e) No Impact. The project site is served by a fully functional municipal sewer system. The
project will connect to this system and would not require use of septic tanks. No impact would
occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
38 Initial Study
4.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Climate change is the distinct change in measures of
climate for a long period of time.17 Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources
of greenhouse gas emissions all over the world. Natural changes in climate can be caused by
indirect processes such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or direct changes within
the climate system itself (i.e. changes in ocean circulation). Human activities can affect the
atmosphere through emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes to the planet’s surface.
Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for
heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and
raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices.
Greenhouse gases differ from other emissions in that they contribute to the “greenhouse effect.”
The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet.
The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn
radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the
atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in
all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by
approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the
industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect
by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average
increase in the Earth’s temperature. Greenhouse gases occur naturally and from human activities.
Greenhouse gases produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide in the atmosphere have increased over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent,
respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of greenhouse gases affect the
atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface
indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way the Earth absorbs gases from the
atmosphere.
17 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and
Climate Change. Back to Basics. April 2009.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 39
GHG emissions for the project were quantified utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 to determine if the project could have a cumulatively considerable
impact related to greenhouse gas emissions, and are summarized in Table 4 (Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory). The emissions inventory accounts for GHG emissions from construction
activities and operational activities.
Operation emissions associated with the proposed project would include GHG emissions from
mobile sources (transportation), energy, water use and treatment, waste disposal, and area
sources. GHG emissions from electricity use are indirect GHG emissions from the energy
(purchased energy) that is produced offsite. Area sources are owned or controlled by the project
(e.g., natural gas combustion, boilers, and furnaces) and produced onsite. Construction activities
are short term and cease to emit greenhouse gases upon completion, unlike operational
emissions that are continuous year after year until operation of the use ceases. Because of this
difference, SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year operational
lifetime. This normalizes construction emissions so that they can be grouped with operational
emissions in order to generate a precise project-based GHG inventory.
Table 4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Source GHG Emissions (MT/YR)
CO2 CH4 N2O TOTAL*
Construction
Grand Total 248.68 0.06 0.00 249.77
30-Year Amortization 8.29 0.00 0.00 8.29
Operational
Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 183.88 0.01 0.00 186.55
Mobile 1,042.12 0.04 0.00 1,049.49
Solid Waste 42.82 2.53 0.00 96.54
Water and Wastewater 13.11 0.07 0.00 15.27
Total 1,281.92 2.65 0.00 1,284.57
Total Construction + Operational 1,290.21 2.65 0.00 1,292.86
Proposed SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Screening Threshold? No
Source: MIG, 2015
* MTCO2E/YR
Notes: Slight variations may occur due to rounding. Construction emissions amortized over 30 years.
On December 5, 2008, the South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted interim GHG significance
thresholds. These thresholds were based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate
Change white paper; thus, a non-zero threshold based on Approach 2 of the handbook will be
used.18 Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical
threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development.
The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalent (MTCO2E) per year for residential and commercial projects.19 This threshold is based
on the review of 711 CEQA projects.
18 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change. January 2008.
19 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group. Meeting
#15, Main Presentation. September 28, 2010.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
40 Initial Study
Pursuant to Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion, in
evaluating the significance of GHG emissions in the context of a particular project, to consider the
“extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a
statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed the 3,000
MTCO2E threshold; therefore, impact would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. Seal Beach has adopted the 2013 edition of the CBC (Title 24), including the
California Green Building Standards Code. The project would be subject to the California Green
Building Standards Code, which requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ
building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies for large buildings, divert
construction waste from landfills, and utilize low pollutant-emitting finish materials. The project
does not include any feature (i.e. substantially alter energy demands) that would interfere with
implementation of these state and City codes and plans. The City of Seal Beach does not have
any additional plans, policies, standards, or regulations related to climate change and GHG
emissions. Also, no other government-adopted plans or regulatory programs in effect at this time
have established a specific performance standard to reduce GHG emissions from a single building
project. No impact would occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 41
4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
□ □ □
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
□ □ □
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
□ □ □
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
□ □ □
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 result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the
project area?
□ □ □
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
□ □ □
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
□ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
42 Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in a significant hazard to
the public if the project includes the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or
places housing near a facility which routinely transports, uses, or disposes of hazardous
materials. The proposed project is located within a primarily commercial and residential area of
the City, and is not located in an industrial area. The proposed project does not include a housing
component and would therefore not place housing near any hazardous materials facilities. The
routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials is primarily associated with industrial
uses that require such materials for manufacturing operations or produce hazardous wastes as
by-products of production applications. The proposed project does not propose or facilitate any
activity involving significant use, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous substances as part of
health club use.
During construction, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials and wastes that are typical of construction projects. This would include fuels and
lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, etc. Routine construction control
measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste
disposal, accident prevention and clean-up, etc. would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
With regard to project operation, widely used hazardous materials common at commercial uses
such as health clubs include cleaners, pesticides, and pool chemicals. The remnants of these and
other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste that are prohibited or discouraged
from being disposed of at local landfills. Regular operation and cleaning of the health club would
not result in significant impacts involving use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous wastes
and substances. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not
present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport
and use of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The health club will include a pool. Operation of pools
involves the use of potentially hazardous chemical (e.g., chlorine) for public health purposes. The
storage of such materials onsite will be limited to amounts needed for routine maintenance, and
all materials will be stored in conformance with the requirements of the Orange County Fire
Authority. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce impact to a less-than-significant
level.
c) Less than Significant Impact. No schools are located within close proximity to the project
site. The nearest schools are Rossmoor Elementary School, located approximately 3,000 feet
north; Weaver Elementary School, located approximately 4,000 feet northwest; and Francis
Hopkinson Elementary School, located approximately 4,000 feet southwest. Operation of the
proposed project—a health club—would not generate any hazardous emissions, and the storage,
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 43
handling, production, or disposal of acutely hazardous materials is not required or proposed for
any aspect of this project. As discussed above, use and storage of pool chemicals would occur in
accordance with existing regulations. Impact would be less than significant with implementation
of existing regulations.
d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site listed on the state’s Cortese List, a
compilation of various sites throughout the state that have been compromised due to soil or
groundwater contamination from past uses. Based upon review of the Cortese List, the project
site is not:
listed as a hazardous waste and substance site by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC),20
listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUFT) site by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB),21
listed as a hazardous solid waste disposal site by the SWRCB,22
currently subject to a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or a Cleanup and Abatement Order
(CAO) as issued by the SWRCB,23 or
developed with a hazardous waste facility subject to corrective action by the DTSC.24
e-f) Less than Significant Impact. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) is a
jointly operated military air base located at 11206 Lexington Drive, in the City of Los Alamitos.
The westernmost boundary of the airfield is approximately 2,000 feet east of the proposed project
site. The project site is located within the planning area for the air base. Los Alamitos JFTB
includes two runways oriented in a southwest to northeast direction. Caltrans Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook guidelines state that noise, obstruction of air navigation, and the safety of
persons working or living in the area of the air base are the primary hazard-related concerns
involving compatibility between the project and operations of the air base. Excessive noise could
be damaging to the health of individuals working in or using the health club. Obstructions could
occur due to tall structures within the approach and departure areas of an airport. Airport
operations could also be impacted by smoke, glare, excessive lighting, and interference from
electrical devices. These concerns are related to the potential for increase in aircraft crashes that
can injure or kill persons on the ground, as well as the crew and passengers of involved aircraft.
The potential from injury or death increases when the density of persons on the ground is
increased. Potential impacts related to development of the proposed health club are discussed
below.
Airport Noise
Noise is of concern if noise levels exceed a 24-hour average level referred to as CNEL
(Community Noise Equivalent Level) and report in decibels (dB, or weighted decibels, dBA).
According to the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the basic guidance sets a CNEL of
20 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor.
<www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp> [Accessed March 2015].
21 California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. <geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov>
[Accessed March 2015].
22 California State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste
Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. <www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf>
[Accessed March 2015].
23 California State Water Resources Control Board. List of Active CDO and CAO.
<www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CDOCAOList.xls> [Accessed March 2015].
24 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Facilities Subject to Corrective Action.
<www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm#Facilities> [Accessed March 2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
44 Initial Study
65 dB as the maximum noise level normally compatible with urban residential land uses. The
Impact Zone Map in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Los Alamitos JFTB depicts two
noise contours: Noise Impact Zone 1 (greater than 65dBA, CNEL) and Noise Impact Zone 2
(between 60-65 dBA, CNEL). The proposed project site is located outside both the noise contours
shown in the AELUP.25 As such, the proposed project is compatible with the AELUP noise policies.
Impacts related to exposing people to excess airport noise would be less than significant.
Obstruction of Air Navigation
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 is the
primary reference source for determining obstructions to air navigation. FAR Part 77 establishes a
series of imaginary surfaces in the airspace surrounding a runway or helicopter landing area. No
object should penetrate into any of these surfaces to ensure an obstruction free airspace for pilots
using the airport. The Caltrans Handbook and the Airport Land Use Plan Part 77 as a reference to
define hazards to air navigation.
Based on the project elevations (see Exhibit 4, Project Elevations), the most elevated point of the
project would be 35 feet to the top of the decorative parapet. Other commercial/retail buildings
located within the shopping center reach a height of 35 feet, which is the maximum allowable
height for buildings located in General Commercial zones. Based on these observations, impacts
related to the obstruction of Los Alamitos JFTB operations due to the height of the proposed
building would be less than significant.
Potential obstruction of airport operations is not limited to the height of structures; obstruction
also includes light and glare effects, electromagnetic interference, and production of smoke.
Beyond the height of the proposed building, illumination from interior lighting and proposed
parking lot lights could also impact airport operations. Pursuant to the Seal Beach Zoning Code,
all on-site lighting is required to be shielded and oriented so as to result in no light spillover onto
adjacent properties (see Section 4.1 for further discussion). This would prevent lighting from
potentially impacting approaching or departing aircraft because the light would not be
substantially visible due to shielding and orientation. Lighting associated with the proposed
project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to obstruction of airport operations
with standard regulations implemented. As discussed in Section 4.1, glare impacts also would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to existing codes and standards.
The proposed health club does not include any use that would produce unusual electronic
frequencies or create and/or emit smoke.
Safety
The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP divides the areas surrounding an airport into Clear Zones
(CZ)/Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Accident Potential Zone “I”, and Accident Potential Zone
“II”. Clear Zones and Runway Protection Zones are designated as having the potential for
extreme crash hazard. The severe potential for loss of life and property due to accidents prohibits
most land uses in these areas. No buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in Clear
Zones/Runway Protection Zones.
The proposed project site is not located within any of the Clear Zones/Runway Protection Zones
or either Accident Potential Zone “I” or Accident Potential Zone “II”, as shown in the Los Alamitos
25 Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Impact Zones Map. December 19,
2002.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 45
AELUP. 26 Furthermore, the project will not attract birds nor emit excessive glare or light, nor
produce or cause steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference that would interfere with or
endanger, aeronautical operations at Los Alamitos JFTB. As such, the project would not present a
safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Impacts would be less than
significant.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is an infill project, replacing 85,600
square feet of asphalt parking with an approximately 37,000-square-foot health club. As there are
no residential uses associated with the project, the project would not increase the population of
the area. Given the increase in built square footage on the site, the proposed project may
increase employment in the area. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would have
to be provided around the building for emergency personnel and equipment access and
emergency evacuation. All project elements, including landscaping, would be sited with sufficient
clearance from existing and proposed structures so as not to interfere with emergency access to
and evacuation from the facility. The project would comply with the California Fire Code (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations, Section 9).
The project driveways would allow emergency access and evacuation from the site, and would be
constructed to California Fire Code specifications. Over the long term, the project would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
evacuation plan because no permanent public street or lane closures are proposed. Construction
work in the street associated with the building would be limited to lateral utility connections;
which would be limited to nominal potential traffic diversion. Project impacts would be less than
significant.
h) No Impact. The project site is not located within a fire hazard zone, as identified on the
latest Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection (CALFIRE).27 There are no wildland conditions in the urbanized area that the
project site is located. No impact would occur.
26 Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Impact Zones Map. December 19,
2002.
27 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Incorporated Fire Hazard Severity Zone: City of
Seal Beach. Local Responsibility Area Recommended, May 2012.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
46 Initial Study
4.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements? □ □ □
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
□ □ □
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
□ □ □
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
□ □ □
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
□ □ □
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? □ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 47
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
□ □ □
h) Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
□ □ □
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. A project normally would have an impact on surface water
quality if discharges associated with the project would create pollution, contamination, or
nuisance as defined in Section 13050 of the California Water Code (CWC), or that cause
regulatory standards to be violated as defined in the applicable National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit or Water Quality Control Plan for the receiving
water body. For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact could occur if the project
would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of the agencies which regulate
surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts
could also occur if the project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to
surface water quality as governed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These
regulations include preparation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to
reduce potential post-construction water quality impacts.
Discharges into stormwater drains or channels from construction sites of one acre or larger are
regulated by the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
(General Permit: Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ) issued by the State Water Quality Control
Board in August 1999 and modified in April 2001. The General Permit was issued pursuant to
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the General
Permit involves developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
specifying best management practices (BMPs) that the project would use to minimize pollution of
stormwater. The SWPPP BMPs would follow the guidelines set forth by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB).
The project applicant will be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements through the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction activities. The City’s Public Works
Director will review the application for compliance with applicable regulations and to ensure that
no water quality standards or discharge requirements are violated.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
48 Initial Study
The project applicant has completed a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
According to the WQMP, impervious surfaces will decrease as a result of project development. The
percentage of pervious surfaces would increase from 6.1 percent to 7.4 percent of the site, and
the percentage of impervious surfaces would decrease from 93.9 percent to 92.6 percent. The
increase in pervious surface area and decrease in pervious surfaces would be attributed to the
amount of pervious landscaping that is proposed as part of project development. Because the
project would include pervious landscaped areas greater than current conditions, total runoff
post-development would incrementally decrease discharge for onsite drainage for a 10-year
design storm.
Nonetheless, the WQMP includes recommendations for modular wetlands biofiltration devices and
structural and non-structural source control BMPs that would be incorporated into project design.
Per the geotechnical report, infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs) were determined to be
infeasible for the site. Structural source control BMPs would include efficient irrigation systems
and landscape design, water conservation measures, smart controllers, and storm drain stenciling
and signage. Non-structural source control BMPs would include education of property owners and
tenants, certain activity restrictions, management of common area landscaping, Title 22 CCR
compliance, common area litter control, employee training, common area catch basin inspection,
street sweeping of private streets and parking lots, and implementation of a Spill Contingency
Plan and the Uniform Fire Code.
Plans for stormwater treatment are required to meet City and regional standards. With
compliance with existing laws, and the implementation of the above mentioned water quality
control measures, project impacts on water quality standards would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. If the project removed an existing groundwater recharge
area or substantially reduced runoff that results in groundwater recharge, a potentially significant
impact could occur.
According to the project WQMP, groundwater levels beneath the site are estimated to be 12 feet
below the ground surface. Project-related grading would not reach these depths, and no
disturbance of groundwater is anticipated. The proposed building footprint area and paved
parking areas would not increase impervious surface coverage on the site; rather, impervious
surfaces would be decreased through increased on-site landscaping. As such, the total amount of
infiltration on site would be increased over existing conditions. Since this site is currently
developed and is not managed for groundwater supplies, this change in infiltration would not have
a significant effect on groundwater supplies or recharge.
The project would be required to comply with Section 11.4.30 (Landscaping and Buffer Yards) of
the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, which would lessen the project’s demand for water
resources. Also, CBC Title 24 water efficiency measures require a demonstrated 20 percent
reduction in the use of potable water. The project’s landscaping plans include drought-tolerant
landscaping materials. Compliance with Title 24 and the City’s Water Conservation in
Landscaping and Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinances would reduce the proposed project’s
impacts to groundwater supplies to a level of less than significant. Water supply is further
discussed in Checklist Response 3.17d.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts to the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area could occur if development of the project results in substantial on- or
off-site erosion or siltation. No streams cross the project site; thus, the project would not alter
any stream course. As discussed in Section 4.9.a above, the project would include facilities to
treat stormwater flows on site through modular wetland biofiltration and a number of structural
and non-structural source control MBPs before runoff enters going to the municipal storm drain
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 49
system. A site drainage plan is required by the City of Seal Beach and would be reviewed by the
City Engineer. The final grading and drainage plan will be approved by the City Engineer during
plan check review. Erosion and siltation reduction measures would be implemented during
construction consistent with an approved SWPPP, which will demonstrate compliance with the
City’s NPDES permit. At the completion of construction, the project would consist of impervious
surfaces and landscaped areas, and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. No
streams cross the project site; thus, the project would not alter any stream course. Impact would
be less than significant.
d-e) Less Than Significant Impact. No streams traverse the project site; thus, the project
would not result in the alteration of any stream course. During construction, the project applicant
would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP as required by law; this would prevent
polluted runoff from leaving the construction site.
With regard to project operation, on-site drainage would be directed to modular wetland
biofiltration treatment systems before discharging into street drains. Construction of the proposed
project would not increase the net area of impermeable surfaces on the site; in fact, the project
would increase permeable areas and infiltration; therefore, substantially increased discharges to
the City’s existing storm drain system will not occur and will not impact local storm drain
capacity. The project is not an industrial use and therefore will not result in substantial pollutant
loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality.
Impacts would be less than significant.
f)No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that would have the potential to
otherwise degrade water quality beyond those issues discussed in Section 4.9.
g)No Impact. The project does not propose any housing; therefore, no impact would occur.
h)No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project site
is identified as Zone X, defined by FEMA as areas outside the 0.2 percent annual chance
floodplain. 28 Therefore, no rising of a floodplain would occur.
i)No Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project site
is not located within an inundation area of a dam.29 Thus, the project is not anticipated to result
in the exposure of persons or structures to risk of hazards associated with dam inundation. No
impact would occur.
j)No Impact. The proposed project is located less than a mile from the Pacific Ocean.
However, according to the Seal Beach General Plan Safety Element, seismically induced seiches
(that is, the sloshing of water due to an earthquake) are not considered a potential hazard in the
City. Moreover, the tsunami hazard in the City is considered low for elevations above the principal
sea bluff in Seal Beach. Areas on the beach or below the sea bluff are considered to have a
moderate tsunami hazard, depending on tidal conditions and their elevation with respect to sea
level. The proposed project site is located in a completely urbanized area of the City,
approximately 16 feet above sea level. Impacts related to seiche and tsunami are not expected to
occur.
28 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number 06059C0112J.
December 3, 2009.
29 City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach General Plan Safety Element. P. S-69. December 2003.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
50 Initial Study
4.10 – Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
□ □ □
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? □ □ □
a) No Impact. The proposed project site is located on the edge of an existing shopping center,
The Shops at Rossmoor and adjacent to a condominium complex to the north, separated from
The Shops at Rossmoor by a block wall. The proposed project would replace asphalt parking with
a health club. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses
within the shopping center and will not divide an established community. The project does not
propose construction of any roadway, flood control channel, or other structure that would
physically divide any portion of the community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is designated as General Commercial in the Seal Beach General
Plan. The project site is zoned General Commercial (GC).
The General Commercial land use category accommodates highway-oriented commercial uses.
The GC zone allows a range of retail sales and service uses by right, such as those occupying The
Shops at Rossmoor center. Large-scale commercial recreation uses, such as the proposed health
club project, as permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed project is
consistent with both General Plan policy and zoning regulations. No impact would occur.
c) No Impact. As discussed in Checklist Response 4.4.f above, the proposed project site and
surrounding areas are not part of any habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As such, no impact
would occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 51
4.11 – Mineral Resources
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
□□□
b)Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
□□□
a-b) No Impact. The project site, located within a fully urbanized area of the City of Seal Beach,
is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. No mineral resource areas exist in the
immediate vicinity.30 Development would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No
impact would occur.
30 City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach General Plan Open Space Element. p. OS-30. December 2003.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
52 Initial Study
4.12 – Noise
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
groundborne vibration or
groundborne 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?
□ □ □
The criteria used for assessing noise impacts associated with the proposed project include the
noise standards set forth in Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations, the Federal
Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise model, and the City of Seal Beach Noise
Compatibility Guidelines in the General Plan, and Chapter 7.15 (Noise) of the Municipal Code.
Also, groundbourne vibrations were analyzed using criteria established by Caltrans since the City
does not have any thresholds for assessing vibration impacts.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 53
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves
that people receive and interpret. Sound pressure levels are described in logarithmic units of
ratios of sound pressures to a reference pressure, squared. These units are called bels. In order
to provide a finer description of sound, a bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated dB. To
account for the range of sound that human hearing perceives, a modified scale is utilized known
as the A-weighted decibel (dBA). Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels
cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. For example, if one automobile
produces a sound pressure level of 70 dBA when it passes an observer, two cars passing
simultaneously would not produce 140 dBA. In fact, they would combine to produce 73 dBA. This
same principle can be applied to other traffic quantities as well. In other words, doubling the
traffic volume on a street or the speed of the traffic will increase the traffic noise level by 3 dBA.
Conversely, halving the traffic volume or speed will reduce the traffic noise level by 3 dBA. A 3
dBA change in sound is the beginning at which humans generally notice a barely perceptible
change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible.31
Noise consists of pitch, loudness, and duration; therefore, a variety of methods for measuring
noise has been developed. According to the California General Plan Guidelines for Noise Elements,
the following are common metrics for measuring noise:32
LEQ (Equivalent Energy Noise Level): The sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound
level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over given sample periods. LEQ is
typically computed over 1-, 8-, and 24-hour sample periods.
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level
during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from
7:00pm to 10:00pm and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00pm
to 7:00am.
LDN (Day-Night Average Level): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-
hour day, obtained after the addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night after 10:00pm
and before 7:00am.
CNEL and LDN are utilized for describing ambient noise levels because they account for all noise
sources over an extended period of time and account for the heightened sensitivity of people to
noise during the night. LEQ is better utilized for describing specific and consistent sources because
of the shorter reference period.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Seal Beach General Plan Noise Element
establishes noise/land use compatibility criteria, and Municipal Code Chapter 7.15 (Noise) sets
forth noise regulations by land use.33 General Plan noise policy does not directly address uses
such as the proposed health club, but the use can be considered analogous to an outdoor
recreation facility, which can be considered compatible in environments where the exterior noise
level is up to 70-75 Ldn or CNEL.
31 California Department of Transportation. Basics of Highway Noise: Technical Noise Supplement.
November 2009.
32 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines. 2003.
33 City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 7.15 (Noise).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
54 Initial Study
With regard noise ordinance regulations applied to commercial uses such as the proposed health
club, the use can generate a maximum exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL during all hours of the
day (with noise spikes permitted of short duration).
Existing land uses surrounding the project site and within the project vicinity generally consists of
commercial and residential land uses. The project site is located within an existing 70 dBA CNEL
noise contour for roadway and freeway noise; however, this noise level is within the “normally
acceptable” level for commercial uses as denoted in the City’s Code of Ordinances. The proposed
project will not result in any new uses or traffic generation that would increase noise levels in the
vicinity or expose persons to levels above those that are deemed normally acceptable in the noise
ordinance. Impact would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if project construction or
operation results in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. Vibration is the movement of mass over time. It is described in terms
of frequency and amplitude and unlike sound; there is no standard way of measuring and
reporting amplitude. Vibration can be described in units of velocity (inches per second) or
discussed in decibel (dB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe
vibration. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of peak particle velocity
(PPV) that describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass).
For purposes of this analysis, PPV will be used to describe all vibration for ease of reading and
comparison. The primary concern related to vibration and people is the potential to annoy those
working and residing in the area. Vibration with high enough amplitudes can damage structures
(such as crack plaster or destroy windows). Groundborne vibration can also disrupt the use of
sensitive medical and scientific instruments such as electron microscopes. Common sources of
vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Operation of the
proposed health club does not include uses that cause vibration, and there are no railroads
located in close proximity to the project site.
Construction Impacts
The proposed project site is adjacent to a residential condominium development. Potential
concerns during project construction include groundborne vibrations. Groundborne vibration
generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil
compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities. Next to pile driving, grading
activity has the greatest potential for vibration impacts if large bulldozers, large trucks, or other
heavy equipment are used. According to the Caltrans vibration manual, large bulldozers, vibratory
rollers (used to compact earth), and loaded trucks utilized during grading activities can produce
vibration, and depending on the level of vibration, could cause annoyance at uses within the
project vicinity or can damage structures. Caltrans has developed a screening tool to determine of
vibration from construction equipment is substantial enough to impact surrounding uses. The
Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for vibration impacts on buildings and humans.
These thresholds are summarized in Tables 5 (Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria) and
6 (Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria).
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 55
Table 5
Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria
Structural Integrity Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some older buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial and commercial structures 2.00 0.50
Source: Caltrans 2004
Table 6
Vibration Annoyance Potential Threshold Criteria
Human Response PPV Threshold (in/sec)
Transient Continuous
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severely perceptible 2.00 0.40
Source: Caltrans 2004
As noted above, Seal Beach does not have any regulations pertaining to vibration. However, the
City does regulate construction noise (see Municipal Code Section 7.15.025, Exemptions), limiting
construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property to between the hours of 7:00
A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction activities
are not permitted on Sundays.
Construction activities that use vibratory rollers and bulldozers are repetitive sources of vibration;
therefore, the continuous threshold above has been used to assess potential impact on the
adjacent residential development. Given the age of the development, the older residential
structures threshold was used. Based on the threshold criteria summarized in Tables 5 and 6,
vibration from use of heavy construction equipment for the proposed project would be below the
thresholds to cause damage to nearby structures and result in less than barely perceptible
vibration at the four receptors shown in Table 7 (Distance to Vibration Receptors) and Table 8
(Construction Vibration Impacts). Impact would be less than significant impact. Also, the
requirements in the Municipal Code related to noise would limit the hours of construction as noted
above.
Table 7
Distance to Vibration Receptors
Receptors
Distance from Center
of Project Site (ft)
1 – Multi-Family Residential (N) 233
2 – Multi-Family Residential (W) 298
3 – Single Family Residential (W) 590
4 – Multi-Family Residential (SW) 381
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
56 Initial Study
Table 8
Construction Vibration Impacts
Receptors Equipment PPVref
Distance
(feet) PPV
1 – Multi-Family Residential (N) Vibratory Roller 0.21 233 0.0115
2 – Multi-Family Residential (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 298 0.0084
3 – Single Family Residential (W) Vibratory Roller 0.21 590 0.0034
4 – Multi-Family Residential (SW) Vibratory Roller 0.21 381 0.0061
1 – Multi-Family Residential (N) Large Bulldozer 0.089 233 0.0049
2 – Multi-Family Residential (W) Large Bulldozer 0.089 298 0.0036
3 – Single Family Residential (W) Large Bulldozer 0.089 590 0.0015
4 – Multi-Family Residential (SW) Large Bulldozer 0.089 381 0.0010
1 – Multi-Family Residential (N) Loaded Truck 0.076 233 0.0042
2 – Multi-Family Residential (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 298 0.0030
3 – Single Family Residential (W) Loaded Truck 0.076 590 0.0012
4 – Multi-Family Residential (SW) Loaded Truck 0.076 381 0.0022
1 – Multi-Family Residential (N) Jackhammer 0.035 233 0.0019
2 – Multi-Family Residential (W) Jackhammer 0.035 298 0.0014
3 – Single Family Residential (W) Jackhammer 0.035 590 0.0006
4 – Multi-Family Residential (SW) Jackhammer 0.035 381 0.0010
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has the potential to increase ambient
noise levels associated with activity on the site and increased traffic generation in the project
vicinity. Below is a discussion of the existing noise environment on the site, followed by a
discussion of noise measurements and operational noise that can be expected from the proposed
project.
Existing Noise Environment
The proposed project site is currently used as parking for retail development within the Shops at
Rossmoor. However, residents of the condominiums to the west and apartments to the north also
use the parking lot without authorization. As such, the project site currently experiences frequent
automobile arrivals and departures associated with use of the retail shops and residential
developments adjoining the site. While arrivals and departures associated with the retail uses
occur during the posted store operating hours, arrivals and departures associated with adjoining
residential uses occur throughout the day and night, as observed during site visits. The project
site is also located on the rear/service side of existing retail stores to the east, meaning truck
trailer loading docks are located in this area. As such, this area experiences sporadic semi-truck
deliveries during the daytime store operating hours, as observed during site visits. Truck trailer
deliveries create temporary noise spikes with opening of trailer gates, extending of delivery
ramps, and cold starting of diesel engines.
Noise Measurements
The above-mentioned activities were recorded via a noise-measuring device on Wednesday, April
1, 2015. Measurements were taken during two separate periods of the day. Two 15-minute
measurements were taken during each of the measurement periods, for a total of four readings.
The first set of measurements was taken during the A.M. peak hour and the second set of
measurements during the 9:00-10:00 P.M. hour. The morning peak time was chosen because the
health club would be open before the retail shops on weeknights; the later time was chosen
because the health club would close after the retail shops close on weeknights. As such, operation
of the proposed project would take place outside the current operating times of existing retail
developments in the shopping center.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 57
During the morning peak hour measurement period, a maximum LEQ of 54.7 was recorded, and
during the nighttime measurement period a maximum LEQ of 49.9 was recorded. Both noise
levels call within the established thresholds in the City’s noise ordinance. It should be noted that
during the morning measurement time, truck trailer deliveries were observed at the loading
docks, while no truck trailer deliveries took place during the nighttime measurements.
Operation of the proposed project would produce noise associated with such activities as vehicle
traffic, loud conversations, opening and closing of car doors, periodic landscape maintenance, etc.
However, these noise sources are typical of commercial/retail uses and are not expected to
induce a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. These noise sources would not exceed standards established in
the local noise ordinance. Moreover, the proposed health club would not double traffic on either
Seal Beach Boulevard or Rossmoor Center Way and therefore would not result in an ambient
increase in traffic-related noise by 3 dBA or more 34. Thus, operation of the proposed health club
and associated traffic-related noise would not create noise increases that would be perceptible to
the surrounding community. Impact would be less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
The project would have associated temporary construction-related noise increases due to on-site
ground disturbing and construction activities. Construction noise levels vary depending on the
type and intensity of construction activity, equipment type and duration of use, and the distance
between the noise sources and the receiver. Typical sound emission characteristics of
construction equipment are provided in Exhibit 5 (Construction Equipment Noise).
Construction noise levels were estimated using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model
(RCNM) (see Appendix A, Roadway Construction Noise Modeling Data). Temporary noise
increases would be greatest during demolition activities when jackhammers and small bulldozers
can produce noise levels up to 88.9 dBA at 233 feet (at the adjacent condominium development)
from the equipment source. This noise level exceeds the noise ordinance ambient standard for
residential areas.
34 LSA Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis. Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor. March, 2015.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
58 Initial Study
Exhibit 5
Construction Equipment Noise
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 59
As described above, for residential areas the City’s noise ordinance establishes an ambient
exterior noise standard of 55 dbA between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. and 50 dBA between 10:00
P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Construction noise in excess of noise standards is permitted between the hours
of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction
activities are not permitted on Sundays. Compliance with these requirements would reduce
construction noise impacts on the surrounding residential uses. However, to further reduce
construction noise impacts on nearby receptors, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 and NOI-2 would
be applied to the project if approved. Temporary construction-related noise impacts would be
less than significant with implementation of existing performance standards.
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 or any federal holidays.
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.
e,f) No Impact. Impacts related to excessive noise levels from Los Alamitos JFTB are discussed
in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As indicated, the proposed project site is
located outside both the noise contours shown in the AELUP for the air base.35 As such, the
proposed project would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies and would not expose
persons residing or working in the project vicinity to excessive aircraft-related noise levels.
Impacts related to exposing people to excess airport noise would be less than significant.
35 Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Impact Zones Map. December 19,
2002.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
60 Initial Study
4.13 – Population and Housing
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
□ □ □
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
□ □ □
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
□ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include any residential uses;
therefore, this project could not result in any direct residential growth. No new expanded
infrastructure is proposed that could accommodate additional growth in the area that is not
already possible with existing infrastructure, so no indirect population growth would occur. The
project would bring a new business to the area. The applicant anticipates up to 45 employees in
the new health club, with approximately 15 employees on site for any single shift. According to
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), employment in the City is projected
to increase by 1,200 jobs between 2008 and 2035.36 Project employment for the project is within
the employment growth assumptions for Seal Beach. Due to the urban nature of the City and
surrounding area, this potential minimal increase in the employment population is expected to be
accommodated by existing housing in the City and neighboring communities. Impacts would be
less than significant.
b) No Impact. The project site is currently an asphalt parking that will be partially demolished
to facilitate project construction. The project site does not contain any housing units and does not
require removal of any residential units; no impact would occur.
c) No Impact. Displacement, in the context of housing, can generally be defined as persons or
groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of
habitual residence.37 There is no housing located onsite and therefore no residents. As such, the
project would not result in forced or obliged removal of persons. No impact would occur.
36 Southern California Association of Governments. RTP 2012 Adopted City-Level Integrated Growth
Forecast. April 2012.
37 The Brookings Institute. Handbook for Applying the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. 1999.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 61
4.14 – Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? □ □ □
b) Police protection? □ □ □
c) Schools? □ □ □
d) Parks? □ □ □
e) Other public facilities? □ □ □
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) provides fire
protection and emergency medical response services to the City of Seal Beach. OCFA also
provides prevention services (e.g., inspections, permits, and drills) within its jurisdiction. OCFA
has mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions and practices unified command in response to
potential emergencies.
The project site is served by OCFA Fire Station No. 48, which is located 0.8 miles south of the
project site. Fire Station No. 48, located at 3131 North Gate Road in Seal Beach, is staffed with a
four-person quint (combination engine/ladder truck apparatus) and a two-person paramedic
squad. In 2009, Fire Station No. 48 received 5,956 calls.38 Use of fire protection services for the
proposed project is expected to be similar to other commercial activities in the area. No new or
expanded fire protection facilities would be required as a result of this project. Furthermore, the
proposed health club does not propose to use hazardous materials or engage in hazardous
activities that would require new or modified fire protection equipment to meet potential
emergency demand. Impacts related to expansion of fire protection services would be less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD), headquartered at
911 Seal Beach Boulevard, provides police protection to the City, including the project site. The
SBPD covers a service area of approximately 13 square miles and a population of 24,605. SBPD
38 Orange County Fire Authority Website. OCFA Fire Stations Details: Station No. 48.
http://www.ocfa.org/Menu/Departments/Operations/PopUps/stn48.htm [Accessed March, 2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
62 Initial Study
has 40 sworn police officers, or a ratio of .615 police officers for every 1,000 persons. SBPD also
has 24 civilian staff.39
The proposed health club is a commercial business that would not create any unique crime
problems than any other similar operation; such activities can be handled with the existing level
of police resources. Private security is currently provided for the shopping center, as observed
during site visits. No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of
this project. No substantial increase in crime is expected with development of the proposed
project. Impacts on police protection services would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As a commercial land use, this project would not have any
residential population and would not generate any direct demand for school facilities. However,
the project could have an indirect impact by attracting employees to the area with school-age
children. Pursuant to the Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act (AB 2926), as adopted in California
Education Code Section 17070.10-17070.99, the project proponent would be required to pay
developer fees to the Los Alamitos Unified School District, prior to the issuance of building
permits, at the current rate charged to commercial development projects. This fee would help
support provision of school services for the community as a whole. According to AB 2926,
payment of developer fees constitutes adequate mitigation for any project-related impacts to
school facilities. Impact to school facilities would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Demand for park and recreational facilities generally are the
direct result of residential development. However, as indicated above, no residential dwelling
units are proposed as part of this project. Also, the project would not substantially contribute a
new employment base to the City that could impact demand for public parks (see Section 14.3).
As a result, no substantial demand for park and recreation facilities would result. Furthermore,
the project primary purpose is to provide onsite activities where patrons participate in
recreation/fitness exercises within the proposed structure. Impact would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project, a nonresidential use, would not result in any population
growth that would require expansion of any other public services such as libraries or hospitals.
The proposed health club would not rely on any such services to conduct normal business
operations. No impact would occur.
39 City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach Police Department Website.
http://www.sealbeachca.gov/safety/police/organization/ [Accessed March, 2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 63
4.15 – Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
□ □ □
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
□ □ □
a) No Impact. The proposed health club project would not increase use of existing recreational
facilities because employees, patrons, and vendors are not expected to combine a trip to a local
park with a trip to this health club. All fitness/recreational activities associated with this use are
programmed to occur within the building. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The project does not include outdoor recreational facilities and does not
necessitate expansion of existing outdoor recreational facilities. The proposed project is a 37,000-
square-foot health club where patrons pay a membership fee to participate in recreation/fitness
exercises within the proposed structure. Therefore, no adverse physical effect on the environment
caused by expansion or construction of outdoor recreational facilities would occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
64 Initial Study
4.16 – Transportation and Traffic
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
□ □ □
b) Conflict with an applicable
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of
service standards and travel
demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
□ □ □
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
□ □ □
d) Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
□ □ □
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? □ □ □
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 65
f) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities?
□ □ □
a) Less than Significant Impact. A project-specific traffic/circulation and parking analysis,
authored by LSA Associates Inc., dated October, 2015 (see Appendices B and C, Traffic and
Queuing Analysis and Traffic Impact Analysis), was prepared to assess project traffic and parking
impacts. The analysis was prepared consistent with the City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
(March 2010) and the City’s General Plan (December 2012).40
The Shops at Rossmoor retail/commercial center west of Seal Beach Boulevard recently underwent
modifications and changes at several locations and is close to full occupancy, with one unoccupied
retail space of 2,400 square feet. Existing traffic along Seal Beach Boulevard includes the traffic
from the occupied retail spaces within The Shops at Rossmoor, as well as residential traffic from
the Rossmoor community. To analyze traffic conditions along Seal Beach Boulevard when The
Shops at Rossmoor is fully occupied, traffic for the unoccupied retail space was added to the
existing traffic volumes. The study analyzes the weekday morning, evening, and weekend mid-day
peak hour levels of service (LOS) at 15 study area intersections and 11 roadway segments for the
following scenarios:
1. Existing (2014) conditions with current occupancy of the retail center
2. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail center
3. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail center plus the
proposed health club
4. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail
center
5. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail
center plus the proposed health club
6. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail
center
7. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail
center plus the proposed health club
Study Area
Seal Beach Boulevard is a north-south arterial that provides access to both residential and
commercial (retail) uses within the City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach Boulevard is a six-lane Major
Arterial per the City’s General Plan, which provides connection to the I-405 freeway as well as the
Interstate 605 (I-605) freeway (via Katella Avenue). The 1.2-mile section of Seal Beach Boulevard
between I-405 and Bradbury Road provides connection to commercial uses both east and west of
Seal Beach Boulevard via local collector streets. There are retail/commercial uses on either side of
Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Bradbury Road. The existing traffic along Seal
Beach Boulevard includes traffic from the occupied retail space within the Shops at Rossmoor, as
well as residential traffic from the Rossmoor community. In order to analyze the traffic conditions
40 LSA Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis. Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor. September,
2015.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
66 Initial Study
along Seal Beach Boulevard when the Shops at Rossmoor is fully occupied, traffic for the
unoccupied retail space was added to existing traffic volumes.
The following roadway segments and intersections were analyzed:
Roadway Segments:
• Seal Beach Boulevard between:
o Rossmoor Way and Bradbury Road
o Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Center Way
o Rossmoor Center Way and Town Center Drive
o Town Center Drive and St. Cloud Drive
o St. Cloud Drive and Lampson Avenue
o Lampson Avenue and I-405 Northbound ramps
• St. Cloud Drive between:
o Seal Beach Boulevard and Yellowtail Drive
• Montecito Road between:
o Yellowtail Drive and Copa De Oro Drive
o Copa De Oro Drive and Mainway Drive
o Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road
• Rossmoor Center Way between:
o Montecito Road and Seal Beach Boulevard
Intersections:
1. Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Southbound ramps
2. Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Northbound ramps
3. Seal Beach Boulevard/Lampson Avenue
4. Seal Beach Boulevard/St. Cloud Drive
5. Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive
6. Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way
7. Seal Beach Boulevard/Bradbury Road
8. Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Drive (unsignalized)
9. Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive (unsignalized)
10. Montecito Road/Mainway Drive-Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
11. Montecito Road/Bradbury Road (unsignalized)
12. West Road/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
13. Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
14. Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
15. Internal Driveway/Town Center Way (unsignalized)
Methodology
The traffic study methodology is described in detail in the traffic study in Appendix B. The
methodology involves use of a level of service, or LOS, descriptor to identify conditions.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 67
Table 9
Seal Beach Operating Conditions for Levels of Service
LOS Operating Condition ICU (v/c ratio)
A Free flowing, virtually no delay. Minimal traffic. <0.60
B Free flow and choice of lanes. Delays are minimal. All cars clear
intersection easily.
0.60-0.69
C State flow. Queue at signal starting to get relatively long. Delays starting
to become a factor but still within “acceptable” limits.
0.70-0.79
D Approaching unstable flow. Queues at intersection are quite long but most
cars clear intersection on their green signal. Occasionally, several vehicles
must wait for a second green signal. Congestion is moderate.
0.80-0.89
E Severe congestion and delay. Most of the available capacity is used. Many
cars must wait through a complete signal cycle to clear the intersection.
0.90-0.99
F Excessive delay and congestion. Most cars must wait through more than
one on one signal cycle. Queues are very long and drivers are obviously
irritated.
>1.00
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = Level of Service
v/c = volume-to-capacity
Per the City’s guidelines, the following project-related increases in intersection ICU (Table 10, ICU
Significance Thresholds) were used to determine if an impact is “significant” and would require
mitigation.
Table 10
ICU Significance Thresholds
Existing ICU Project-Related Increase in
ICU
0.00-0.69 0.06
0.70-0.79 0.04
0.80-0.89 0.02
0.90+ 0.01
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
In addition to the ICU methodology of calculating signalized intersection LOS, the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) methodology was used to determine the LOS at the signalized ramp
intersections governed by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and at unsignalized
study area intersections. The HCM 2000 unsignalized intersection methodology presents LOS in
terms of control delay (in seconds per vehicle). The resulting delay is expressed in terms of LOS,
as in the ICU methodology. The relationship of delay to LOS is demonstrated in Table 11 (ICU
Methodology Significance Thresholds).
Table 11
ICU Methodology Significance Thresholds
LOS Unsignalized Intersection Delay
(seconds)
A ≤10.0
B >10.0 and ≤15.0
C >15.0 and ≤25.0
D >25.0 and ≤35.0
E >35.0 and ≤50.0
F >50.0
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
68 Initial Study
Roadway segments have uniform traffic conditions and roadway characteristics. The measure used
to provide an estimate of LOS is density, where density is calculated from the average vehicle flow
rate per lane and the average speed. Table 12 (Level of Service and Flow Density) shows the
correlation between LOS and flow density.
Table 12
Level of Service and Flow Density
LOS Density (pc/mi/ln)
A ≤11
B >11-18
C >18-26
D >26-35
E >35-45
F >45
LOS = level of service
pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
For the purposes of this project, the analysis considered LOS D as satisfactory on all study area
roadway segments.
Existing Conditions
Existing weekday morning (7:00 A.M.– 9:00 A.M.), evening (4:00 P.M.– 6:00 P.M.), and weekend
mid-day (11:00 A.M.– 1:00 P.M.) peak-hour traffic conditions and LOS were analyzed for existing
(2014) conditions. Intersection turn-movement counts were made at the 15 study area
intersections, and daily 24-hour counts were conducted for the 11 study area roadway segments.
The trips generated from surrounding existing land uses, which consist of residential and retail
uses east and west of Seal Beach Boulevard, are included in the counts.
A summary of Existing (2014) Levels of Service for intersections and roadway segments are
presented in Tables 13 (Existing 2014 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary) and 14
(Existing 2014 Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary), respectively. As Tables 13 and 14
indicate, all study area intersections and roadway segments are currently operating at satisfactory
LOS (LOS D or better).
Table 13
Existing (2014) Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection AM Peak hour PM Peak hour Saturday Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU-Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 38.9 D 41.0 D 40.6 D
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 37.5 D 36.0 D 35.6 D
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.751 C 0.713 C 0.692 B
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.614 B 0.694 B 0.636 B
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.468 A 0.755 C 0.848 D
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.547 A 0.674 B 0.714 C
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.758 C 0.697 B 0.624 B
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 12.3 B 10.7 B 10.2 A
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 12.0 B 8.8 A 8.8 A
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 12.4 B 9.5 A 9.1 A
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 12.5 B 9.3 A 8.8 A
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.8 A
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.6 A 11.5 B 15.1 C
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.4 A 10.8 B 15.8 C
ICU V/C Ration is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 69
Table 14
Existing (2014) Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 13.6 B 45.0 13.8 B
South 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 14.0 B 45.0 13.2 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 16.4 B 45.0 14.8 B 45.0 16.3 B
South 45.0 15.8 B 45.0 15.6 B 45.0 14.6 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 13.0 B
South 45.0 11.1 B 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 10.9 A
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 12.9 B 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 10.3 A
South 45.0 11.4 B 45.0 11.5 B 45.0 10.4 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 11.9 B
South 45.0 11.5 B 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 12.1 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 14.1 B 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 12.1 B
South 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 14.2 B 45.0 12.3 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 24.4 - C 26.5 - C 27.5 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive 26.5 - C 29.7 - B 30.4 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 29.6 - B 30.9 - A 31.1 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 28.7 - B 30.4 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard 27.4 - A 27.3 - A 28.0 - A
*Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Trip Generation and Distribution
As indicated in Table 15 (Health Club Trip Generation), the proposed project is estimated to
generate 1,218 daily trips, 52 weekday a.m. peak hour trips, 131 weekday p.m. peak hour trips,
and 103 Saturday mid-day peak hour trips.
Table 15
Health Club Trip Generation
Size Unit ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate
TSF 32.93 0.71 0.71 1.41 2.01 1.52 3.53 1.25 1.53 2.78
Trip Generation
37,233 TSF 1,218 26 26 52 74 56 131 46 57 103
ADT = average daily traffic
TSF = thousand square feet
Unoccupied Space within the Shops at Rossmoor
In order to evaluate the adjacent Shops at Rossmoor retail center at full occupancy, traffic from
the unoccupied space in the northern part of the retail center has been developed. The unoccupied
portion of the Shops at Rossmoor consists of 2,400 sf of retail use and is located between Pure
Barre and Chick-fil-A just west of Seal Beach Boulevard.
Trip generation for the unoccupied space was calculated based on rates contained in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (Ninth Edition), which is a standard reference
used by jurisdictions throughout the country for estimating the trip generation potential of new
developments.
The unoccupied space is classified as part of the shopping center use (ITE Land Use 820). The
potential trip generation was calculated using the average rates (per 1,000 sf) as opposed to the
fitted curve equation as the equations are inappropriate for the size of the unoccupied space and
would result in an unrealistic estimation of potential trips. As indicated in Table 16 (Unoccupied
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
70 Initial Study
Space within the Shops at Rossmoor Trip Generation), the unoccupied space is estimated to
generate 102 daily trips, 2 weekday a.m. peak hour trips, 9 weekday p.m. peak hour trips, and 12
Saturday mid-day peak hour trips.
Table 16
Unoccupied Space within the Shops at Rossmoor Trip Generation
Size Unit ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate1
Shopping Center TSF 42.70 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 2.51 2.31 4.82
Trip Generation
Retail 2,400 TSF 102 1 1 2 4 5 9 6 6 12
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Ninth Edition (2012).
ADT = average daily traffic TSF = thousand square feet
The new retail trips were distributed throughout the study area using the same information from
the County’s current travel demand model (Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
[OCTAM]) that was utilized for the proposed project. Trips generated by the unoccupied parcel
were added to the base traffic volumes to develop “with Full Occupancy” traffic volumes.
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Conditions
To represent the full potential of traffic that could traverse Seal Beach Boulevard and the study
area in the existing condition, existing weekday a.m., p.m. and weekend mid-day peak-hour traffic
conditions were modified based on the additional traffic from the unoccupied space for the Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy scenario.
The trip assignment of the unoccupied portion of the retail center was added to the Existing (2014)
counts to develop the volumes for the Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy conditions. A summary
of Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy conditions LOS at study area intersections and roadway
segments are presented in Tables 17 (Existing 2014 with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection
Level of Service Summary) and 18 (Existing 2014 with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level
of Service Summary), respectively. As the tables indicate, all study area intersections and roadway
segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better). Less than significant
impacts will occur.
Table 17
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection AM Peak hour PM Peak hour Saturday Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU-Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 38.9 D 41.0 D 40.6 D
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 37.5 D 36.0 D 35.7 D
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.751 C 0.714 C 0.693 B
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.614 B 0.695 B 0.637 B
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.468 A 0.755 C 0.849 D
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.547 A 0.675 B 0.714 C
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.758 C 0.697 B 0.625 B
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 12.3 B 10.7 B 10.2 B
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 12.0 B 8.8 A 8.8 A
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 12.4 B 9.5 A 9.1 A
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 12.5 B 9.3 A 8.8 A
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.8 A
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.6 A 11.5 B 15.1 C
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.4 A 10.8 B 15.8 C
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 71
Table 18
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 13.7 B 45.0 13.8 B
South 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 14.0 B 45.0 13.2 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 16.4 B 45.0 14.8 B 45.0 16.3 B
South 45.0 15.8 B 45.0 15.6 B 45.0 14.7 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 13.0 B
South 45.0 11.0 B 45.0 12.6 B 45.0 10.9 A
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 10.3 A
South 45.0 11.3 B 45.0 11.5 B 45.0 10.4 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 11.9 B
South 45.0 11.5 B 45.0 12.1 B 45.0 12.1 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 14.2 B 45.0 13.1 B 45.0 12.1 B
South 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 14.3 B 45.0 12.3 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 24.4 - C 26.6 - C 27.5 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive 26.5 - C 29.7 - B 30.4 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 29.6 - B 30.9 - A 31.1 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 28.7 - B 30.4 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard 27.4 - A 27.3 - A 28.0 - A
*Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Conditions
In order to identify any potential project impacts to traffic and circulation, project traffic was added
to Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy traffic. A summary of Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy
plus health Club LOS for study area intersections and roadway segments is presented in Tables 19
(Existing 2014 with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Summary) and 20 (Existing 2014 with full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway Level
of Service Summary), respectively. As the tables indicate, all study area intersections and roadway
segments are anticipated to continue to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) with the
addition of project traffic. Less than significant impacts will occur.
Table 19
Existing (2014) Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Summary
Intersection Existing (2014) + Full
Occupancy
Existing (2014) + Full Occupancy +
Health Club
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
ICU/
Delay
LOS ICU/
Delay
LOS ICU/
Delay
LOS ICU/
Delay
LOS ICU/
Delay
LOS ICU/
Delay
LOS
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 38.9 D 41.0 D 40.6 D 38.9 D 41.3 D 40.7 D
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 37.5 D 36.0 D 35.7 D 37.6 D 36.3 D 35.9 D
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.751 C 0.714 C 0.693 B 0.755 C 0.721 C 0.700 B
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.614 B 0.695 B 0.637 B 0.617 B 0.702 C 0.643 B
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.468 A 0.755 C 0.849 D 0.471 A 0.761 C 0.854 D
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.547 A 0.675 B 0.714 C 0.564 A 0.718 C 0.749 C
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.758 C 0.697 B 0.625 B 0.760 C 0.704 C 0.629 B
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 12.3 B 10.7 B 10.2 B 12.3 B 10.7 B 10.3 B
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 12.0 B 8.8 A 8.8 A 12.1 B 8.8 A 8.8 A
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 12.4 B 9.5 A 9.1 A 12.5 B 9.5 A 9.2 A
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 12.5 B 9.3 A 8.8 A 12.5 B 9.3 A 8.8 A
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.8 A 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.9 A
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.4 A 9.3 A 9.4 A
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.6 A 11.5 B 15.1 C 8.9 A 13.4 B 18.0 C
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.4 A 10.8 B 15.8 C 7.4 A 10.8 B 15.8 C
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
72 Initial Study
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Table 20
Existing (2014) Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service
Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 13.9 B 45.0 14.0 B
South 45.0 15.5 B 45.0 14.2 B 45.0 13.3 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 16.5 B 45.0 15.1 B 45.0 16.5 B
South 45.0 15.9 B 45.0 15.8 B 45.0 14.9 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 13.6 B 45.0 13.2 B
South 45.0 11.1 B 45.0 12.8 B 45.0 11.1 B
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 10.5 A
South 45.0 11.4 B 45.0 11.7 B 45.0 10.6 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 12.9 B 45.0 12.1 B
South 45.0 11.6 B 45.0 12.4 B 45.0 12.3 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 14.3 B 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 12.3 B
South 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 14.5 B 45.0 12.5 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 24.4 - C 26.5 - C 27.5 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive
26.5 - C 29.6 - B 30.4 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 29.6 - B 30.9 - A 31.1 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 28.7 - B 30.4 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard
26.9 - A 26.2 - A 27.2 - A
* Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Conditions
According to the project applicant, the proposed project will be completed in 2016. In order to
present a near-term 2016 traffic condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year was
added to existing traffic volumes along with traffic from the unoccupied parcel within The Shops at
Rossmoor. This growth rate was reached through consultation with City staff. It should be noted
that City staff also provided information on one nearby cumulative development of a new car wash
within the Mobil gas station 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.
A summary of Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy LOS for study area
intersections and roadway segments is presented in Tables 21 (Project Completion Year 2016 with
Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary) and 22 (Project Completion
Year 2016 with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary), respectively. LOS
for study area intersections and roadway segments associated with the addition of the proposed
project (plus Health Club) are presented in Tables 23 (Project Completion Year 2016 with Full
Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary) and 24 (Project
Completion 2016 with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service
Summary), respectively. As shown on the tables, all study area intersections and roadway
segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Project
Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy conditions, without and with the proposed health
club. Less than significant impacts will occur.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 73
Table 21
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service Summary
Intersection AM Peak hour PM Peak hour Saturday Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU-Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 39.0 D 41.4 D 40.8 D
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 36.6 D 36.1 D 35.8 D
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.757 C 0.720 C 0.699 B
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.619 B 0.701 C 0642 B
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.472 A 0.762 C 0.857 D
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.552 A 0.680 B 0.720 C
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.764 C 0.703 C 0.630 B
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 12.4 B 10.7 B 10.3 B
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 12.1 B 8.8 A 8.8 A
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 12.5 B 9.5 A 9.1 A
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 12.6 B 9.4 A 8.8 A
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.9 A
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.6 A 11.6 B 15.4 C
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.4 A 10.9 B 16.1 C
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Table 22
Project Completion Year (2016) w/ Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.4 B 45.0 13.8 B 45.0 14.0 B
South 45.0 15.5 B 45.0 14.2 B 45.0 13.3 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 16.5 B 45.0 15.0 B 45.0 16.4 B
South 45.0 15.9 B 45.0 15.8 B 45.0 14.8 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 13.5 B 45.0 13.5 B 45.0 13.1 B
South 45.0 11.2 B 45.0 12.8 B 45.0 11.0 A
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 13.1 B 45.0 12.8 B 45.0 10.4 A
South 45.0 11.4 B 45.0 11.6 B 45.0 10.5 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 12.9 B 45.0 12.0 B
South 45.0 11.6 B 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 12.2 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 14.3 B 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 12.2 B
South 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 14.4 B 45.0 12.5 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 24.3 - C 26.5 - C 27.5 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive
26.4 - C 29.6 - B 30.4 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 29.5 - B 30.9 - A 31.1 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 28.7 - B 30.3 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard
27.4 - A 27.3 - A 27.9 - A
* Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
74 Initial Study
Table 23
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Intersection Level Of Service Summary
Intersection 2016 + Full Occupancy 2016 + Full Occupancy +
Health Club
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS Δ ICU
ICU/
Delay LOS Δ ICU
ICU/D
elay LOS Δ ICU
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 39.0 D 41.4 D 40.8 D 39.1 D - 41.6 D - 40.9 D -
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 36.6 D 36.1 D 35.8 D 36.8 D - 36.4 D - 36.0 D -
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.757 C 0.720 C 0.699 B 0.761 C 0.004 0.727 C 0.007 0.706 C 0.007
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.619 B 0.701 C 0.642 B 0.622 B 0.003 0.708 C 0.007 0.648 B 0.006
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.472 A 0.762 C 0.857 D 0.475 A 0.003 0.767 C 0.005 0.862 D 0.005
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.552 A 0.680 B 0.720 C 0.569 A 0.017 0.724 C 0.044 0.755 C 0.035
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.764 C 0.703 C 0.630 B 0.767 C 0.003 0.710 C 0.007 0.634 B 0.004
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 12.4 B 10.7 B 10.3 B 12.4 B - 10.7 B - 10.3 B -
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 12.1 B 8.8 A 8.8 A 12.1 B - 8.9 A - 8.8 A -
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 12.5 B 9.5 A 9.1 A 12.6 B - 9.6 A - 9.2 A -
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 12.6 B 9.4 A 8.8 A 12.6 B - 9.4 A - 8.8 A -
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.0 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 8.0 A - 8.1 A - 7.9 A -
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.4 A - 9.3 A - 9.4 A -
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.6 A 11.6 B 15.4 C 8.9 A - 13.6 B - 18.5 C -
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.4 A 10.9 B 116.1 C 7.4 A - 10.9 B - 16.1 C -
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Δ Indicates project related change in ICU
Table 24
Project Completion (2016) with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway
Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.5 B 45.0 14.0 B 45.0 14.1 B
South 45.0 15.6 B 45.0 14.4 B 45.0 13.5 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 16.6 B 45.0 15.2 B 45.0 16.6 B
South 45.0 16.0 B 45.0 16.0 B 45.0 15.0 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 13.6 B 45.0 13.7 B 45.0 13.3 B
South 45.0 11.2 B 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 11.2 B
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 13.1 B 45.0 10.6 A
South 45.0 11.5 B 45.0 11.8 B 45.0 10.7 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.4 B 45.0 13.1 B 45.0 12.2 B
South 45.0 11.7 B 45.0 12.5 B 45.0 12.4 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 14.4 B 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 12.4 B
South 45.0 13.5 B 45.0 14.7 B 45.0 12.6 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 24.3 - D 26.4 - C 27.4 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive
26.4 - C 29.6 - B 30.4 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 29.5 - B 30.9 - A 31.0 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 28.6 - B 30.4 - B 31.0 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard
26.9 - A 26.3 - A 27.2 - A
* Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 75
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout Conditions
Traffic conditions for the future long-range condition, corresponding to the buildout of the City’s
General Plan, were analyzed in the study. The traffic volumes for Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout traffic conditions were developed based on an annual growth rate applied to the Existing
(2014) weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend peak-hour traffic volumes at study intersections and
roadway segments to represent a 21-year horizon. To develop the Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout baseline volumes, LSA estimated the annual growth rate of 0.2 percent per year based
on the growth along Seal Beach Boulevard using the OCTAM traffic model. However, based on
discussions with City staff, a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year was applied over the next 21
years to provide a conservative traffic analysis.
To account for the fully occupied retail center, the trip assignment generated earlier for the
unoccupied portion was manually added to the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout traffic
volumes to develop the volumes for the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy
condition. The LOS at the study area intersections and roadway segments were identified based
on this data.
A summary of Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy LOS for study area
intersections and roadway segments is presented in Tables 25 (Future 2035 General Plan Buildout
with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary) and 26 (Future 2035
General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary),
respectively. The LOS for study area intersections and roadway segments associated with the
inclusion of the proposed project are presented in Tables 27 (Future 2035 General Plan Buildout
with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary) and 28
(Future 2035 General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour Roadway
Level of Service Summary), respectively.
As shown on the tables, all study area intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to
operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full
Occupancy, without and with health club conditions. Impacts related to level of service for project
intersections and roadways will be less than significant.
As shown on Table 27, the addition of project traffic at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard
and Rossmoor Center Way results in an ICU increase that exceeds the City’s threshold of
significance by 0.004 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. It should be noted this intersection is
anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under all peak hours in the Future (2035)
General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy with Health Club conditions. As all study area
intersections and roadway facilities are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS from Existing
(2014) to Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Health Club traffic
conditions, operational improvements aimed at alleviating LOS deficiencies are not warranted and
have not been recommended.
However, the traffic study recommended that the proposed project mitigate its significant
contribution of traffic at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way
through a fair share contribution towards improvements to alleviate existing queuing deficiencies.
Existing and potential queuing deficiencies and mitigation are described herein.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
76 Initial Study
Table 25
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service Summary
Intersection AM Peak hour PM Peak hour Saturday Peak Hour
ICU/Delay LOS ICU-Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 40.1 D 42.8 D 42.5 D
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 38.4 D 36.9 D 36.7 D
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.766 C 0.767 C 0.738 C
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.616 B 0.744 C 0.677 B
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.490 A 0.784 C 0.890 D
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.574 A 0.723 C 0.745 C
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.774 C 0.751 C 0.654 B
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 11.6 B 10.9 B 10.4 B
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 10.4 B 8.8 A 8.9 A
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 11.2 B 9.7 A 9.2 A
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 11.2 B 9.4 A 8.9 A
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 7.7 A 8.0 A 7.8 A
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.1 A 9.1 A 9.2 A
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.4 A 11.9 B 16.9 C
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.3 A 11.4 B 16.6 C
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
Table 26
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 14.6 B 45.0 14.8 B
South 45.0 16.8 B 45.0 14.8 B 45.0 13.8 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 16.0 B 45.0 16.4 B
South 45.0 15.3 B 45.0 16.9 B 45.0 15.1 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 13.1 B
South 45.0 11.0 A 45.0 13.3 B 45.0 11.4 B
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 12.6 B 45.0 12.8 B 45.0 11.2 B
South 45.0 11.0 A 45.0 12.2 B 45.0 10.6 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.5 B 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 12.5 B
South 45.0 10.9 A 45.0 13.2 B 45.0 12.8 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 13.8 B 45.0 13.7 B 45.0 12.5 B
South 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 15.2 B 45.0 13.1 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 25.7 - C 26.4 - C 27.3 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive
28.1 - B 29.8 - B 30.2 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 30.3 - B 30.7 - A 31.1 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 29.5 - B 30.3 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard
28.0 - A 27.5 - A 27.9 - A
* Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 77
Table 27
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection 2035 + Full Occupancy 2035 + Full Occupancy +
Health Club
AM PM Sat AM PM Sat
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS
ICU/
Delay LOS Δ ICU
ICU/
Delay LOS Δ ICU
ICU/D
elay LOS Δ ICU
1 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 SB On/Off Ramps1 40.1 D 42.8 D 42.5 D 40.2 D - 43.1 D - 42.7 D -
2 Seal Beach Blvd./I-405 NB On/Off Ramps1 38.4 D 36.9 D 36.7 D 38.5 D - 37.2 D - 37.0 D -
3 Seal Beach Blvd./Lampson Avenue 0.766 C 0.767 C 0.738 B 0.770 C 0.004 0.774 C 0.007 0.744 C 0.006
4 Seal Beach Blvd./St. Cloud Drive 0.616 B 0.744 C 0.677 B 0.619 B 0.003 0.751 C 0.007 0.683 B 0.006
5 Seal Beach Blvd./Town Center Drive 0.490 A 0.784 C 0.890 D 0.493 A 0.003 0.789 C 0.005 0.895 D 0.005
6 Seal Beach Blvd./Rossmoor Center Way 0.574 A 0.723 C 0.745 C 0.590 A 0.016 0.766 C 0.043 0.778 C 0.033
7 Seal Beach Blvd./Bradbury Road 0.774 C 0.751 C 0.654 B 0.776 C 0.002 0.758 C 0.007 0.658 B 0.004
8 Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Road* 11.6 B 10.9 B 10.4 B 11.7 B - 10.9 B - 10.4 B -
9 Montecito Road/Copa de Oro Drive* 10.4 B 8.8 A 8.9 A 10.5 B - 8.9 A - 8.9 A -
10 Montecito Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 11.2 B 9.7 A 9.2 A 11.2 B - 9.8 A - 9.3 A -
11 Montecito Road/Bradbury Road* 11.2 B 9.4 A 8.9 A 11.2 B - 9.5 A - 8.9 A -
12 West Road/Rossmoor Center Way* 7.7 A 8.0 A 7.8 A 7.7 A - 8.0 A - 7.8 A -
13 Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 9.1 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.2 A - 9.3 A - 9.4 A -
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way* 8.4 A 11.9 B 16.9 C 8.6 A - 13.9 B - 20.7 C -
15 Internal Driveway/Town Center Drive* 7.3 A 11.4 B 16.6 C 7.3 A - 11.4 B - 16.6 C -
ICU V/C Ratio is used for signalized intersections in the City of Seal Beach.
* Indicates unsignalized intersection. HCM delay in seconds is used for unsignalized intersections.
1 HCM Methodology- consistent with Caltrans requirements.
(Border) = Exceeds City “Significance” Threshold
Table 28
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Plus Health Club Peak Hour
Roadway Level of Service Summary
Roadway Segment Direction
AM PM Saturday Mid-Day
Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS Speed Density LOS
Seal Beach
Blvd.
I-405 NB On/Off Ramps and Lampson
Avenue
North 45.0 12.3 B 45.0 14.8 B 45.0 15.0 B
South 45.0 16.9 B 45.0 14.9 B 45.0 14.0 B
Lampson Avenue and St. Cloud Drive North 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 16.3 B 45.0 16.6 B
South 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 17.2 B 45.0 15.3 B
St. Cloud Drive and Town Center
Drive
North 45.0 12.8 B 45.0 13.5 B 45.0 13.2 B
South 45.0 11.1 B 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 11.6 B
Town Center Drive and Rossmoor
Center Way
North 45.0 12.7 B 45.0 13.0 B 45.0 11.3 A
South 45.0 11.1 B 45.0 12.4 B 45.0 10.8 A
Rossmoor Center Way and Bradbury
Road
North 45.0 12.6 B 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 12.7 B
South 45.0 11.0 A 45.0 13.4 B 45.0 13.0 B
Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Canter
Way
North 45.0 13.9 B 45.0 13.9 B 45.0 12.6 B
South 45.0 12.4 B 45.0 15.4 B 45.0 13.2 B
St. Cloud
Drive*
Seal Beach Blvd. and Yellowtail Drive 25.6 - C 26.4 - C 27.3 - C
Montecito
Road*
Yellowtail Drive and Copa de Oro
Drive
28.0 - B 29.7 - B 30.2 - B
Copa de Oro Drive and Mainway Drive 30.2 - B 30.6 - A 31.0 - A
Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road 29.5 - B 30.2 - B 31.1 - A
Rossmoor
Center Way**
Montecito Road and Seal Beach
Boulevard
27.7 - A 26.6 - A 27.1 - A
* Analyzed as Two Lane Roadways with a speed limit of 35 mph. ** Analyzed as Two Lane Roadway with a speed limit of 30 mph.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
78 Initial Study
On-Site Circulation and Queuing to Enter Site
This section presents the results of the site access assessment conducted for Existing (2014) and
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus health club conditions performed by LSA. As presented
previously in this report, both project driveways and site adjacent intersections are anticipated to
operate at satisfactory LOS for all analysis scenarios.
As part of the site access assessment, existing and potential turn-pocket queuing issues at site
access points and site adjacent intersections were analyzed using a simulation model. SimTraffic
(Version 8.0) software. Due to variability that arises from simulations of this nature, multiple
simulation runs for each analysis scenario were averaged to draw representative queuing results.
This method more accurately measures the full impact of queuing and blocking of traffic.
Queuing results for Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy without and with health club traffic
conditions are shown on Table 29 (Site Access Queuing Summary). As shown on Table 29, all
existing peak-hour queues at site access points and site-adjacent intersections are anticipated to
be sufficiently stored by existing facilities with the exception of the northbound left-turn pocket at
the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way. Based on the results of this
assessment, the proposed retiming and reservicing of northbound left-turn movements at the
intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way can reduce the anticipated queues
associated with the addition of the proposed project to approximately existing queue lengths
associated with existing traffic and existing signal timing. These northbound left-turn queues are
still anticipated to exceed the existing storage length by approximately 95 feet.
Improvements to provide sufficient storage to this northbound left-turn queue include the
lengthening of the existing northbound left-turn pocket to provide for approximately 200 feet of
storage with or without the reservicing of northbound left-turn movements. There is sufficient
space to extend this pocket to this length without modifying the unsignalized southbound left-turn
pocket south of this location.
Due to the anticipated need for extension of northbound left-turn lane storage at the intersection
of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way for all assessed alternatives (200 total feet of
storage without and with reservicing), the extension of the northbound left-turn storage lane at
the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way is recommended over the addition
of a second northbound left-turn lane due to the relative lack of interference with existing
geometrics and consistency with length of other left-turn pockets south of Rossmoor Center Way
along Seal Beach Boulevard. The implementation of dual northbound left-turn lanes is not
recommended due to the relatively low left-turning volumes (200 in the Saturday midday peak
hour) and likelihood of unequal lane utilization. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
recommends consideration of dual left-turn lanes when left-turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per
hour (assuming moderate levels of opposing through traffic and adjacent street traffic) and
discourages dual left-turn lanes where left- turning vehicles are not expected to evenly distribute
themselves among lanes (Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide, FHWA, August 2004).
The northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way
can be extended to 250 feet of storage with a 90-foot transition. A storage length of 250 feet can
be accommodated without shortening the adjacent southbound left-turn lane storage with some
restriping of the southbound turn pocket. A storage length of 250 feet, or two vehicle design
lengths beyond the anticipated 95th percentile queue, is recommended in an effort to keep
northbound left-turn queues out of the northbound through lanes in the unlikely instances where
the 95th percentile queues may be exceeded. This length will not affect the storage length of the
southbound left-turn pocket to the south of this pocket. The transition/taper length of these back-
to-back turn pockets can be shared. The modified median will vary between two and four feet and
may not be able to accommodate landscaping (see Figure 6)
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 79
In an effort to determine the extent of the proposed project’s contribution to this existing and
future queuing deficiency, the percentage of northbound left-turning vehicles attributable to the
project has been calculated (see Appendix B). With construction of the recommended
improvements, queues at the left-turn pocket from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard to Rossmoor
Center Way are anticipated to be sufficiently stored so as to not exceed City standards for queuing
at intersections. The applicant will be required to include these improvements as part of project
approval. Impacts related to queuing at project intersections will be less than significant with
construction of the recommended left-turn pocket improvements.
Mitigation Measure T-1:
Prior to 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 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.
Table 29
Site Access Queuing Summary
Intersection Movement
Storage
Length
95th
Intersection HCM Analysis
AM PM Sat Mid-
AM PM Sat Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy
Existing Signal Timing
5 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Town Center
Di
2.7 A 22.3 C 27.3 C NBL 180 61 186 291
6 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Rossmoor
Center Way 25.5 C 12.6 B 15.8 B NBL 105 102 201 208
EBL 230 139 232 245
EBTR 230 60 84 142
14 Internal
Driveway/Rossmoor
Center Way 8.7 A 11.9 B 16.4 C EBLT 190 48 54 48
EBTR 190 50 52 50
WBLTR 230 82 169 211
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project
Existing Signal Timing
5 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Town Center
Drive
2.7 A 19.1 B 27.3 C NBL 180 62 192 283
6 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Rossmoor
Center Way 25.7 C 13.4 B 16.6 B NBL 105 107 202 203
EBL 230 159 239 260
EBTR 230 71 121 188
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
80 Initial Study
Intersection
Movement
Storage
Length
95th
Intersection HCM Analysis
AM
PM
Sat Mid-
AM
PM
Sat
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
14 Internal
Driveway/Rossmoor
Center Way
9.0
A
14.1
B
20.5
C EBLT 190 56 58 57
EBTR 190 48 54 56
WBLTR 230 89 187 224
Optimized Signal Timing with Reservicing of Northbound Lefts at Rossmoor Center Way and Town
5 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Town Center
Drive1
2.7 A 20.7 C 33.5 C NBL 180 62 245 230
6 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Rossmoor
Center Way1
25.7
C
17.3
B
25.8
C NBL 105 107 186 196
EBL 230 159 249 254
EBTR 230 71 115 147
14 Internal
Driveway/Rossmoor
Center Way
9.0
A
14.1
B
20.5
C EBLT 190 56 61 59
EBTR 190 48 54 56
WBLTR 230 89 143 165
Dual Northbound Lefts into Town Center Drive
5 Seal Beach
Boulevard/Town Center
Drive
2.6
A
10.8
B
24.2
C NBL 1 180 11 114 174
NBL 2 180 50 140 191
Storage Length = Storage length as measured from stop bar to the end of lane striping, ft = feet, NB = northbound, EB = eastbound, L
= left, T = through, R = right, NBL 1 = outside northbound left-turn lane, NBL 2 = inside northbound left-turn lane.
1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 analysis results are presented at this location for this alternative as HCM 2010 methodology
does not support non-National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) phasing such as split phasing or reservicing.
(Shade) = Exceeds existing storage length
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 81
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
82 Initial Study
Parking
A parking analysis to review the parking supply and demand for the proposed health club since
the facility would displace existing spaces for the existing retail center. Through previous
entitlements acquired by the Shops at Rossmoor from the City, the commercial center currently
has 2,068 existing parking spaces. With completion of the proposed project, the total number of
parking spaces in the center will be reduced to 1,981 spaces. With the proposed project a total
of 1,645 spaces are required at the Shops at Rossmoor. Thus, adequate parking supply within
the Shops at Rossmoor will be provided. Although the Shops at Rossmoor retail center is private
property, some residents of adjacent condominium communities have been observed to utilize
retail center parking spaces for their vehicles when not conducting business at the retail center.
However, this use is not authorized. This analysis investigates whether the reduced parking
supply can adequately meet future parking demand or whether increased enforcement of parking
policy will be necessary to ensure adequate parking supply for retail and health club patrons.
Existing Parking Conditions
The proposed health club facility would be built in an existing parking lot within the Shops at
Rossmoor. The affected parking lots are shown on Exhibit 7 (Existing Parking Zones) and divided
into two zones. Parking lot usage surveys were conducted on a typical weekday (Thursday,
November 13, 2014) and again on a typical weekend, (Saturday, November 15, 2014). As shown
on Tables 30 (Weekday Parking Utilization Summary) and 31 (Weekend Parking Utilization
Summary), existing parking facilities were not fully utilized, with at least 25% of the spaces
available.
Table 30
Weekday Parking Utilization Summary
Parking
Supply
Parking Demand Remaining
Spaces Peak Time
Zone 1 116 15 7:00 p.m. 101
Zone 2 329 96 1:00 p.m. 233
Total 445 106 1:00 p.m. 339
Table 31
Weekend Parking Utilization Summary
Parking
Supply
Parking Demand Remaining
Spaces Peak Time
Zone 1 116 17 10:00 a.m. 99
Zone 2 329 139 2:00 p.m. 190
Total 445 153 2:00 p.m. 292
Future Parking Demand
Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 11.4.20 establishes required parking for all developments
within the City. Table 11.4.20.015.A.1 requires that gyms and fitness studios with more than
20,000 square feet provide one parking space per 300 square feet of development. Thus, 124
parking stalls are required to serve the proposed 37,000-square-foot fitness facility. In addition,
development of the health club facility would result in a loss of approximately 40 parking spaces.
Demand for these spaces would vary throughout the day. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) has
collected data on the variation in parking demand for health clubs by time of day and has
published that data in Shared Parking (Second Edition). Table 32 (Future Weekday Parking
Demand) displays the anticipated variation in weekday parking demand generated by the
proposed project and adds that to the observed existing parking demand to determine the
anticipated total future parking demand. This total is compared to the future parking supply of
404 spaces to determine the number of spaces remaining. Table 33 (Future Weekend Parking
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 83
Demand) repeats this process for weekend parking demand. Exhibit 8 (Future Parking Zones)
illustrates the future parking supply and peak parking demand by zone.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
84 Initial Study
Exhibit 6
Existing Parking Zones
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 85
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
86 Initial Study
There are 17 parking stalls in Zone 2 that are reserved for the Farmers and Merchants Bank
building, per the Fifth Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and
Grant of Easements (Effective March 31, 2014). Tables 32 and 33 have included these 17
reserved parking stalls as part of the future parking demand. As shown on Tables 32 and 33,
sufficient parking will be provided in the weekday and weekend by the combination of Parking
Zones 1 and 2 to accommodate future demand, which includes buildout of the retail center and
the proposed health club facility. Impacts related to parking demand and supply will be less than
significant.
Table 32
Future Weekday Parking Demand
Typical
Parking
Demand1
Health
Club2
Existing
Demand
Farmers &
Merchants
Bank3
Future
Total
Parking
Supply
Remaining
Spaces
8:00 a.m. 40% 50 74 17 141 405 264
9:00 a.m. 70% 87 78 17 182 405 223
10:00 a.m. 70% 87 85 17 189 405 216
11:00 a.m. 80% 99 104 17 220 405 185
12:00 p.m. 60% 74 99 17 190 405 215
1:00 p.m. 70% 87 106 17 210 405 195
2:00 p.m. 70% 87 104 17 208 405 197
3:00 p.m. 70% 87 100 17 204 405 201
4:00 p.m. 80% 99 90 17 206 405 199
5:00 p.m. 90% 112 88 17 217 405 188
6:00 p.m. 100% 124 88 17 229 405 176
7:00 p.m. 90% 112 92 17 221 405 184
8:00 p.m. 80% 99 96 17 212 405 193
9:00 p.m. 70% 87 98 17 202 405 203
10:00 p.m. 30% 43 90 17 150 405 255
1 Health Club Time-of-Day Factors for Weekdays, Shared Parking. Second Edition, Urban Land Institute
2 Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) requires 1 space per 300 square feet (sf) of gym and fitness studios greater than
20,000 sf; Health Club is proposed 37,000 sf.
3 17 stalls within Zone 2 have been reserved for the Farmers & Merchants bank building in the Shops at Rossmoor per the
Fifth Amendment Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Grant of Easement.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 87
Table 33
Future Weekend Parking Demand
Typical
Parking
Demand1
Health
Club2
Existing
Demand
Farmers &
Merchants
Bank3
Future
Total
Parking
Supply
Remaining
Spaces
8:00 a.m. 35% 43 91 17 151 405 254
9:00 a.m. 50% 62 99 17 178 405 227
10:00 a.m. 35% 43 110 17 170 405 235
11:00 a.m. 50% 62 119 17 198 405 207
12:00 p.m. 50% 62 122 17 201 405 204
1:00 p.m. 30% 37 142 17 196 405 209
2:00 p.m. 25% 31 153 17 201 405 204
3:00 p.m. 30% 37 148 17 202 405 203
4:00 p.m. 55% 68 125 17 210 405 195
5:00 p.m. 100% 124 119 17 260 405 145
6:00 p.m. 95% 118 118 17 253 405 152
7:00 p.m. 60% 74 107 17 198 405 207
8:00 p.m. 30% 37 105 17 159 405 246
9:00 p.m. 10% 12 90 17 119 405 286
10:00 p.m. 1% 1 92 17 110 405 295
1 Health Club Time-of-Day Factors for Weekdays, Shared Parking. Second Edition, Urban Land Institute
2 Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) requires 1 space per 300 square feet (sf) of gym and fitness studios greater than
20,000 sf; Health Club is proposed 37,000 sf.
3 17 stalls within Zone 2 have been reserved for the Farmers & Merchants bank building in the Shops at Rossmoor per the
Fifth Amendment Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Grant of Easement.
b)No Impact. The Congestion Management Program (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.41 As identified in Section 4.16.a above, the proposed
health club would result in 1,218 new trips. The project would not, therefore, conflict with an
applicable congestion management program or level of service standard established by the
congestion management agency. No impact would occur.
c)No Impact. The project site is located within the planning area of an airport land use plan;
however, the project does not include any structures that would change air traffic patterns or uses
that would generate air traffic. Furthermore, the proposed building height (35 feet at its highest
point) would not affect airport approach or departure spaces or any air traffic patterns. Therefore,
no impacts related to a change in air traffic patterns would occur.
d)No Impact. Access to the project site is proposed via two driveways on Rossmoor Center
Way. The site can also be accessed via Towne Center Drive from a driveway that enters the Shops
at Rossmoor from Seal Beach Boulevard. Extension of the left-turn pocket from northbound Seal
Beach Boulevard onto Rossmoor Center Way will be extended an additional 125 to accommodate
anticipated increases in queuing. The design of the proposed project and associated circulation
improvements would comply with all applicable City regulations. Furthermore, the proposed
project does not involve changes in the alignment of Seal Beach Boulevard or Rossmoor Center
Way, which are adjacent to the project site. The left-turn pocket extension would not revise Seal
Beach Boulevard’s alignment or increase hazards. No line of sight issues will occur on the
driveways located on Rossmoor Center Way with inclusion of a six-foot easement along the health
41 Orange County Transportation Authority. 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program. 2011.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
88 Initial Study
club northern boundary. As such, impacts related to roadway design features and incompatible
uses would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the design of the
proposed project would not satisfy emergency access requirements of the Orange County Fire
Authority or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the
project site or adjacent uses. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency
access. As discussed above, access to the project site is proposed via two driveways on Rossmoor
Center Way and an additional entrance into the Shops at Rossmoor on Seal Beach Boulevard. The
width of these driveways, as well as internal drive aisles, is sufficient to provide access for fire and
emergency vehicles and is consistent with the California Fire Code. All access features are subject
to and must satisfy the City of Seal Beach and Orange County Fire Authority design requirements.
This project would not result in adverse impacts with regard to emergency access. Impact would
be less than significant.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Public bus transit service in the project vicinity is currently
provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Bus Route 42 on Seal Beach
Boulevard. This line runs at a high frequency (every 15 minutes or better) over a long service day,
with service late into the evening and on weekends. The proposed project would not result in any
substantial changes to lane or street configuration of Seal Beach Boulevard, any surrounding
streets, or to existing sidewalks. Seal Beach Boulevard is not equipped with striped bicycle lanes.
While a left-turn pocket lane will be extended on Seal Beach Boulevard, this traffic improvement
would not demonstrably affect performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. During
project construction, temporary closures of sidewalk areas would be required. However, these
closures would be short term in nature, and appropriate signage would be required to direct
pedestrians around the closure. Lane closures associated with extension of the left-turn pocket
lane would be coordinated and limited to the left-turn pocket and median. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 89
4.17 – Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
□□□
b)Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
□□□
c)Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
□□□
d)Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
□□□
e)Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
□□□
f)Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
□□□
g)Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?□□□
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
90 Initial Study
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could affect Regional Water Quality
Control Board treatment standards by increasing wastewater production, which would require
expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities. Exceeding the RWQCB treatment
standards could result in contamination of surface or ground waters with pollutants such as
pathogens and nitrates.
The project site is served by a public sewer system. All wastewater generated by the proposed
project would be discharged into the local sewer main and conveyed for treatment at the Orange
County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) reclamation plants. OCSD, under contract with Seal Beach,
collects and treats wastewater at regional facilities. According to the 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan for the City of Seal Beach, OCSD’s collection system eventually feeds into the
OCSD Plant No. 2 located at 22212 Brookhurst Street in the City of Huntington Beach. OCSD
Plant 2 has a treatment capacity of 70 million gallons per day (MGD).42
Based on the CalEEMod default estimates for water use, the health club would use approximately
3,551,450 gallons of water annually, which includes both indoor uses such as showers and
drinking fountains and outdoor use such as sprinklers for landscaping. Generally, wastewater is
approximately 80% of total water demand. As such, the project is estimated to generate
approximately 2,841,160 gallons of wastewater per year, or 7,784 gallons per day (gpd). This
volume is well within the remaining treatment capacity of OCSD Plant No. 2. This project would
thus have a less-than-significant impact on the ability of the facility to operate within its
established wastewater treatment requirements, which are enforced via the facility’s NPDES
permit authorized by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Wastewater flows associated with the proposed project would consist of the same kinds of
substances typically generated by commercial uses, and no modifications to any existing
wastewater treatment systems or construction of any new ones would be needed to treat this
project’s wastewater. The ultimate disposal of effluent and solids would occur in compliance with
waste discharge requirements set by the California RWQCB. Wastewater conveyed from the site
would undergo treatment in accordance with applicable regulations, including the requirements of
the RWQCB. The project would have a less than significant impact related to wastewater
treatment requirements.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City provides water to a population of 25,561
throughout its service area. The City receives its water from two main sources: 1) the Lower
Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District
(OCWD) and 2) imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).
Groundwater is pumped from three active wells located throughout the City, and imported water
is treated at the Diemer Filtration Plant and delivered to the City via imported water connections.
Regarding wastewater facilities, as discussed in the preceding response, wastewater generated at
the project site is treated at OCSD Plant No. 2. The proposed project is estimated to have a
wastewater generation of approximately 7,784 gpd. As stated in section 4.17.a, this generation is
well within the existing remaining treatment capacity of OCSD Plant No. 2.
No additional improvements are anticipated to either sewer lines or treatment facilities to serve
the proposed project, as the project represents a very small use in the context of all development
served. Standard connection fees will address any incremental impacts of the proposed project.
Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts.
42 City of Seal Beach. 2010 Water Quality Management Plan. July 2011.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 91
c)Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the Hydrology section, the proposed project
would not generate substantially increased runoff from the site that would require construction of
new storm drainage facilities. In fact, the project would increase the total pervious surfaces on
the site due to increased landscaping. As indicated in the engineering analysis conducted for the
proposed project, total discharge rates for onsite drainage would decrease from 5.70 cubic feet
per second (cfs) to 4.44 cfs for drainage Area A, and from 1.55 cfs to 1.53 cfs for drainage Area
B.On-site Soils are not suitable for a stormwater infiltration system to reduce the flow level, and
store and reuse is not technically feasible because the landscape areas are not large enough to
accommodate the required re-use quantity. However, the project would include measures to treat
stormwater flows on site through modular wetland biofiltration and a number of structural and
non-structural source control BMPs before entering the municipal storm drain system. The
expected decrease in stormwater flow and implementation of these measures mean that no new
facilities or expansion of existing storm drainage facilities is required, as current levels can be
accommodated by existing storm drainage facilities.
An NPDES permit would be required for the proposed project, which requires adoption of
appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The proposed project’s storm drainage system would include the
above mentioned measures to ensure the storm water would be cleaned and retained onsite to a
level equal to or greater than the NPDES mandates. Implementation of BMPs would reduce
pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff from the project site. The proposed storm drainage
system, in combination with the SWPPP and BMPs, must be designed to the satisfaction of the
City’s Public Works Director and in conformance with all applicable permits and regulations. The
project applicant/developer would be required to provide all necessary on-site drainage
infrastructure. Impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation beyond compliance with
existing laws is required.
d)Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Seal Beach 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP), the City has the rights to pump approximately 2,853 total acre-feet
per year (afy) of water from its three wells. The UWMP reported an estimated total demand of
4,610 afy in fiscal year 2009-2010. This total includes 1,750 afy of imported water and 2,850 afy
of local groundwater. Estimated demand in 2015-2016 (at the time of the proposed project
completion) is predicted to be 4,720 afy; demand in 2030 is projected to be 4,880 afy.
Cumulative supply from the Central Basin and Main basin exceed projected demand in 2014-2015
and 2029-2030.
The proposed project would generate a marginal increase in additional demand for water relative
to overall existing citywide demand. Based on the CalEEMod default estimates for water use, the
health club would use approximately 3,551,450 gallons of water annually, which includes both
indoor uses such as showers and drinking fountains and outdoor use such as sprinklers for
landscaping.
Water use by the building would be roughly 9,730 gallons per day, or approximately 11 afy. As
the UWMP anticipates an overall increase in demand associated with development in the area
over 2010 conditions, and the water demand for this project is within that demand assumption,
impacts would be less than significant. The project would not substantially deplete water supplies,
and the project would have a less than significant impact on entitled water supplies.
The project would be required to comply with Chapter 10.40 (Streetscape) and 11.4.30
(Landscaping and Buffer Yards) of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, which would lessen the
project’s demand for water resources. Also, CBC Title 24 water efficiency measures require a
demonstrated 20 percent reduction in the use of potable water. The project’s landscaping plans
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
92 Initial Study
include drought-tolerant landscaping materials. Compliance with Title 24 and the City’s Water
Conservation in Landscaping and Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinances would reduce the
proposed project’s impacts to groundwater supplies to a level of less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As detailed in Sections 4.17a and 4.17b, the proposed
project would be adequately served by existing wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities.
Impact would be less than significant impact.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. A commercial retail use is estimated to produce 2.5 pounds
per 100 square feet per day.43 According to this measure, the health club would produce
approximately 931 pounds of waste per day. However, the health club is likely to produce
significantly less waste than the average commercial retail use, as limited packaging materials are
used and the use is generally service-oriented. According to CalEEMod default settings for waste
production, the proposed health club would produce 213 tons of waste annually, or 117 pounds
per day.
Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC (Republic Services) provides exclusive waste and recycling
collection services for residential and commercial uses in the City of Seal Beach.44
Republic Services currently operates three landfills in the Los Angeles/Orange County area in
Long Beach, Gardena, and Anaheim. Republic Services also has recycling operations at their
Anaheim facility, as well as at their BFI Falcon transfer station in Wilmington. Republic Services
landfills currently have sufficient capacity to serve the City of Seal Beach now and into the future.
The addition of 117 pounds per day of solid waste and recycling materials will not exceed the
waste treatment capacity of Republic Services. Considering the availability of landfill capacity
and the relatively nominal amount of solid waste generation from the proposed project, project
solid waste disposal needs can be adequately met without a significant impact on the capacity of
Republic Services landfills. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable federal, state,
County, and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste as a standard project condition of
approval. Therefore, no impact would occur.
43 Republic Waste Services of Southern California. Loading Factors. July 2011.
44 Republic Services Website. Comprehensive Waste and Recycling Services: Landfills.
http://site.republicservices.com/corporate/business/wasterecycling/facilities/landfills.aspx [Accessed March
2015].
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Rossmoor Health Club 93
4.18 – Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
□□□
b)Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?□□□
c)Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□□□
a)Less Than Significant. The proposed project would not impact any scenic vista or scenic
resource, nor would it degrade the visual character of the area, as discussed in Section 4.1. The
project would not result in excessive light or glare. The project site is located within an urbanized
area with no natural habitat. The project would not impact any sensitive plants, plant
communities, fish, wildlife or habitat for any sensitive species, as discussed in Section 4.4.
Adverse impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would not occur. Construction-
phase procedures would be implemented in the event any important archaeological or
paleontological resources are discovered during grading, consistent with required state laws. This
site is not known to have any association with an important example of California’s history or
prehistory. The environmental analysis provided in Section 4.2 concludes that impacts related to
emissions of criteria pollutants and other air quality impacts will be less than significant. Sections
4.7 and 4.9 conclude that impacts related to climate change and hydrology and water quality will
be less than significant.
Based on the preceding analysis of potential impacts in the responses to items 4.1 thru 4.17, no
evidence is presented that this project would degrade the quality of the environment. The City
hereby finds that impacts related to degradation of the environment, biological resources, and
cultural resources would be less than significant.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
94 Initial Study
b) Less Than Significant. Cumulative impacts can result from the interactions of environmental
changes resulting from one proposed project with changes resulting from other past, present, and
future projects that affect the same resources, utilities and infrastructure systems, public
services, transportation network elements, air basin, watershed, or other physical conditions.
Such impacts could be short-term and temporary, usually consisting of overlapping construction
impacts, as well as long term, due to the permanent land use changes involved in the project.
The proposed health club would result in less than significant environmental impacts (with
mitigation incorporated), as discussed in this Initial Study. Short-term impacts related to noise
would be less than significant and therefore would not contribute substantially to any other
concurrent construction programs that may be occurring in the vicinity. Short-term impacts
related to pollutant emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed thresholds.
To assess potential cumulative impacts associated with this project, an inventory of other
proposed development projects was prepared. Currently, only one nearby cumulative
development was identified: a new car wash within an existing Mobil service and gas station at
the northeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way/Plymouth Drive. The
proposed project, in combination with this project, would not significantly cumulatively affect the
environment. Water supplies have been studied in the City’s UWMP, and the cumulative projects
are accounted for in UWMP. Continued efforts towards water conservation, as required by state
law, would reduce water demands; the project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on water supply and other resources. As indicated in Section 4.16, the proposed project
would not result in any significant traffic impacts to traffic or transportation.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Based on the analysis of the
proposed project’s impacts in the responses to items 4.1 thru 4.17, no evidence indicates that
this project could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. While project
construction would result in temporary noise impacts and criteria pollutant emissions, these would
be minimized to acceptable levels through application of routine construction control measures.
Long-term effects would include increased vehicular traffic, traffic-related noise, periodic on-site
operational noise, minor changes to on-site drainage, and a minor change to the visual character
of the site. None of these effects would be significant. Projected emission levels would be below
the thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Project-related traffic would represent a small percentage increase in traffic volumes along nearby
roadways and would have a less-than-significant impact on roadway noise levels.
The analysis concludes that direct and indirect environmental effects would result in less than
significant impacts, with mitigation applied to address construction noise and long-term traffic
impacts. Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the City finds that direct and indirect impacts
to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Rossmoor Health Club 95
5 References
5.1 – List of Preparers
City of Seal Beach (Lead Agency)
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(562) 431-2527
Crystal Landavazo, Senior Planner
MIG, Inc. (Environmental Analysis)
537 S. Raymond Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91105
(626) 744-9872
migcom.com
Laura Stetson, Principal and Project Manager
Cameron Hile, Project Analyst
Bryan Fernandez, Project Analyst
5.2 – Persons and Organizations Consulted
As noted in the footnotes
References
96 Initial Study
Summary of Mitigation Measures
Rossmoor Health Club 97
6 Summary of Mitigation Measures
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 or any federal holidays.
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.
Mitigation Measure T-1:
Prior to 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 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.
Summary of Mitigation Measures
98 Initial Study
Appendix Materials
Rossmoor Health Club 99
7 Appendix Materials
Appendix Materials
100 Initial Study
APPENDIX A
Roadway Construction Noise Modeling Data
Appendix Materials
Rossmoor Health Club 101
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 03/26/2015
Case Description: Health Club
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Apartments North Residential 55.0 50.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Roller No 20 80.0 233.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 233.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 233.0 0.0
Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 233.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Roller 66.6 62.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 68.3 67.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dump Truck 63.1 62.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Jackhammer 75.5 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 75.5 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
**** Receptor #2 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Apartments West Residential 55.0 50.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Roller No 20 80.0 298.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 298.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 298.0 0.0
Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 298.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Roller 64.5 60.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 66.2 65.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dump Truck 60.9 60.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Jackhammer 73.4 69.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 73.4 71.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
**** Receptor #3 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Single-Family Homes West Residential 55.0 50.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Roller No 20 80.0 590.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 590.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 590.0 0.0
Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 590.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Roller 58.6 54.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 60.2 59.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dump Truck 55.0 54.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Jackhammer 67.5 63.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 67.5 65.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
**** Receptor #4 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Apartments Southwest Residential 55.0 50.0 50.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Roller No 20 80.0 381.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 381.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 381.0 0.0
Jackhammer Yes 20 88.9 381.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA)Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Roller 62.4 58.4N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 64.0 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dump Truck 58.8 57.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Jackhammer 71.3 67.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 71.3 69.4N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Appendix Materials
102 Initial Study
APPENDIX B
Traffic Analysis and Queuing Analysis
Appendix Materials
Rossmoor Health Club 103
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx»
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
949.553.0666 TEL
949.553.8076 FAX
BERKELEY
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
PALM SPRINGS
PT. RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROCKLIN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DESIGN
April 6, 2016
Bill Estenger, PE
Jones Lang LaSalle
4 Park Plaza, Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92614
Subject: Revised Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Expanded Queuing Assessment
Dear Mr. Estenger:
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this revised queuing assessment that evaluates the
effectiveness of potential intersection improvements based on the expansion of the Shops at
Rossmoor to include a health club facility. This supplemental analysis has been prepared based on
discussions with City of Seal Beach (City) staff as a result of their review of the traffic study that was
prepared for the project, (Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis, LSA, 2015).
Specifically, potential improvements to the City intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor
Center Way, Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive and Internal Driveways/Rossmoor Center
Way have been assessed. The improvements include physical (added turn lanes) and/or operational
changes (e.g., signal timing changes and signal phasing changes). This revised assessment includes
new data provided by the City for signal timing that was implemented in March 2016.
This assessment was based on existing signal timing data sent by the City of Seal Beach and the City
of Los Alamitos staff. The assessment has been conducted for the following scenarios:
Existing Geometrics with existing signal timing
Existing Geometrics with optimized signal timing and signal phase changes
Dual northbound left turns at Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive
VOLUME DEVELOPMENT AND METHODOLOGY
Traffic volumes assessed in this effort are consistent with those presented in the traffic analysis. The
analysis evaluates typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours as well as the Saturday midday peak
hour.
Turn-pocket queuing and intersection performance have been conducted using Synchro Version 9.1
and SimTraffic Version 9.1 software. Signalized and unsignalized intersection performance has been
analyzed by calculating delay experienced by vehicles using methods published in the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM).
Synchro is a software tool that can determine (macro level) levels of service (LOS) and delays
according to methods consistent with the HCM methodology and has been utilized in this assessment
to analyze intersection and arterial performance.
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx» 2
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
SimTraffic is a microsimulation tool that builds on the operational data analyzed by Synchro and adds
elements of randomization as it produces simulations of traffic moving through the modeled roadway
network. Due to the geometric specificities unique to the study area that are reflected in the model
and the elements of randomization produced by the simulation of discrete vehicle behavior,
SimTraffic can provide a more extensive look at traffic conditions such as queuing at intersections. As
such, SimTraffic has been utilized to simulate 95th percentile queues at the study intersection turn
pockets. The 95th percentile queues presented by SimTraffic represent the highest 95th percentile of
queues observed within the traffic simulation. As such, the 95th percentile queue does not represent
the anticipated average queue lengths, but rather a conservative “worst-case” queue based on the
worst 95th percentile.
The operational analysis conducted by the Synchro and SimTraffic software packages utilizes factors
such as signal timing and the interaction with adjacent intersections. In order to take into account the
potential effect, if any, of operational timing alternatives of the study area intersections along the Seal
Beach Boulevard corridor, the following intersections were incorporated in this assessment:
Seal Beach Boulevard/St. Cloud Drive;
Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive;
Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way;
Seal Beach Boulevard/Bradbury Road;
Los Alamitos Boulevard/Orangewood Avenue;
Los Alamitos Boulevard/Farquhar Avenue; and
Los Alamitos Boulevard/Katella Avenue.
The intersections along Los Alamitos Boulevard were taken into consideration due to concerns of
City staff regarding potential effects on the coordination of the corridor. These specific intersections
were selected based on their inclusion as study area intersections in the City of Los Alamitos General
Plan: Mobility and Circulation Element (Placeworks, March 2015). According to signal timing
information provided by the City in March 2016, the preferred signal timing cycle length for the
signalized intersections along Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center
Way is 120 seconds per cycle. Signal timing information north of Rossmoor Center Way along Seal
Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard up to Katella Avenue was previously obtained from the
Cities of Seal Beach and Los Alamitos. In an effort to maintain the existing north-south coordination
along Seal Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard, the various improvements assessed in this
effort have maintained the existing cycle lengths at all signalized intersections along Seal Beach
Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard south of Katella Avenue. Existing signal timings were optimized
for the existing traffic volumes and lane geometrics. Proposed improvements included signal phasing
modifications performed with an objective of minimizing turn-pocket queues while simultaneously
maintaining acceptable LOS “D or better” (consistent with standards utilized in the traffic analysis) at
each of the study intersections. The signal timings and phasings were also adjusted to optimize the
northbound and southbound arterial segment performance of Seal Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos
Boulevard.
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx» 3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
As shown in Table A (attached), the existing northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Seal
Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way currently provides approximately 105 feet (ft) of storage
while the existing northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Town
Center Drive currently provides approximately 180 ft of storage. In addition, the segment of
Rossmoor Center Way east of the internal driveway within the Shops at Rossmoor and west of Seal
Beach Boulevard is approximately 230 ft.
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
The anticipated queues and their respective peak-hour intersection LOS for each of the scenarios
listed above are summarized in Table A. Turn-pocket queuing, HCM intersection LOS worksheets,
and HCM arterial segment LOS worksheets are provided in Attachments A, B, and C, respectively.
The existing conditions of the study intersections and related queue lengths found in Table A are
discussed below.
Existing Signal Timing
The existing signal timing scenario provides a baseline for turn-pocket queues and intersection
operations from which all potential improvements can be compared. The signal timings utilized in
this scenario are based on the signal timing inputs provided by the Cities of Seal Beach and Los
Alamitos for each of the study intersections and then optimized in a manner to prioritize overall
intersection operations and arterial performance over queuing issues at turn pockets.
In an effort to demonstrate potential increases in queues and intersection delay, two sets of conditions
have been presented for this scenario. The Existing with Full Occupancy conditions represent a
without project condition while the Existing with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions represent
anticipated conditions inclusive of the proposed health club. These conditions are consistent with
those analyzed in the traffic analysis.
A discussion of the existing intersection and queuing performance at each of the study intersections in
question is shown below:
Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive. As shown in Table A, the northbound left-turn
lane at this intersection is anticipated to experience queuing beyond the existing storage length
without and with the development of the proposed project. The 95th percentile queue for the
northbound left-turn lane is anticipated to exceed the current storage length by up to
approximately 110 ft without and with the development of the proposed project during the
Saturday midday peak hour.
Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way. As shown in Table A, the northbound left-turn
lane at this intersection is anticipated to experience queuing beyond the existing storage length
without and with the development of the proposed project. The development of the project is
anticipated to result in no meaningful increase to the 95th percentile queue for the northbound left-
turn lane. The 95th percentile queue for the northbound left-turn lane is anticipated to exceed the
current storage length by up to approximately 95 ft without and with the development of the
proposed project during the Saturday midday peak hour. The development of the project is
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3_.docx» 4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
anticipated to result in an increase of the 95th percentile queue from 245 ft to 260 ft for the
eastbound left-turn lane at Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way during the Saturday
midday peak hour. This represents a 30 ft overflow of the existing 230 ft eastbound left-turn lane,
or approximately one design vehicle length of 25 ft. This would not mean that vehicles are
necessarily queued in the middle of the intersection. It is more likely that outbound vehicles from
the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches at the internal intersection west of Seal
Beach Boulevard are waiting at their respective stop-controlled approaches for queued vehicles to
move onto Seal Beach Boulevard. These simulated queues are consistent with queues observed
during field visits made by LSA staff in March 2016.
Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way. As shown in Table A, no queuing issues are
anticipated at the eastbound and westbound approaches regardless of the development of the
proposed project.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
A discussion of the intersection operations and queuing performance associated with each of the
improvement alternatives assessed in this analysis are summarized below. LOS for northbound and
southbound through movements along the signalized intersections and arterial segments of Seal
Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard were optimized under all improvement alternatives where
optimization of the signal timings was performed. LOS worksheets detailing the performance of
northbound and southbound through movements along the signalized intersections and arterial
segments of Seal Beach Boulevard/Los Alamitos Boulevard are included in Attachments B and C,
respectively.
Optimized Signal Timing with Reservicing for Northbound Left Turns onto Town Center
Drive and Rossmoor Center Way
The optimized signal timing with reservicing for northbound left turns onto the Town Center Drive
and Rossmoor Center Way scenario is a proposed improvement scenario in which no geometric
improvements are implemented. Reservicing consists of allowing northbound left turns to occur twice
every cycle, by providing both a “lead” and a “lag” phase for the northbound left-turn movement
during periods of heavy queuing, such as the weekday p.m. peak hour and the Saturday midday peak
hour. As shown in Table A, this improvement can help reduce the peak-hour queues that currently
exceed provided storage lengths to below existing levels at the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way (i.e., 208 ft) but not enough to eliminate the need to provide
additional queuing storage. In addition, LOS at the intersections along Los Alamitos Boulevard is not
affected by the proposed signal timing at Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way.
As shown in Table A, the development of the project in conjunction with this improvement
alternative may add approximately 24 ft, or less than one 25 ft design vehicle, to the eastbound left-
turn lane at Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way. This eastbound left-turn queue storage is
anticipated to be exceeded by the 95th percentile queue during one or more peak hours without or with
the project, regardless of timing alternative. As this 95th percentile queue never exceeds the provided
storage by 25 ft, or one design vehicle length, during the worst 5 percent of a peak hour
(approximately 3 times per peak hour), this excess queue is not considered significant.
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx» 5
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Dual Northbound Left Turns onto Town Center Drive
Dual northbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive have
also been assessed in an effort to alleviate queuing issues that, as shown in Table A, currently exist
during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours. Project traffic was not added to this access
point. Based on the location of the project, it would be a circuitous route for members of the health
club to drive into the retail center at Town Center Drive and traverse through several parking lots and
avoid pedestrians to arrive at the project site. Even if approximately 5–10 percent of project traffic
was to enter via Town Center Drive, this would represent only 4–8 inbound vehicles in a peak hour
which would not significantly affect the queuing at Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive.
As shown in Table A, the addition of a second northbound left-turn lane at Seal Beach Boulevard/
Town Center Drive will reduce the anticipated 95th percentile northbound left-turn queues to fit
within two 180 ft storage lanes. This improvement will not affect the northbound left-turn queues at
Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way.
This improvement, however effective, is not recommended at this time due to the relative infrequency
of 95th percentile northbound left-turn queues exceeding the existing storage length and the requisite
need for additional right-of-way that currently does not exist.
QUEUING AT THE INTERNAL DRIVEWAY/ROSSMOOR CENTER WAY
Potential queuing issues at the internal driveway on Rossmoor Center Way related to the adjacent
proposed improvements at Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way were also assessed in an
effort to identify any unforeseen internal queuing issues. As shown in Table A, eastbound queues on
the west leg of the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way are anticipated to be
adequately serviced under improvement scenarios in which two eastbound lanes are maintained.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this assessment, the proposed retiming and reservicing of northbound left-turn
movements at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way can reduce the
anticipated queues associated with the addition of the proposed project to approximately existing
queue lengths associated with existing traffic and existing signal timing. These northbound left-turn
queues are still anticipated to exceed the existing storage length by approximately 95 ft.
Improvements to provide sufficient storage to this northbound left-turn queue include the lengthening
of the existing northbound left-turn pocket to provide for approximately 200 ft of storage with or
without the reservicing of northbound left-turn movements. There is sufficient space to extend this
pocket to this length without modifying the unsignalized southbound left-turn pocket south of this
location.
Due to the anticipated need for extension of northbound left-turn lane storage at the intersection of
Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way for all assessed alternatives (200 total feet of storage
without and with reservicing, the extension of the northbound left-turn storage lane at the intersection
of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way is recommended over the addition of a second
northbound left-turn lane due to the relative lack of interference with existing geometrics and
4/6/16 «P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx» 6
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
consistency with length of other left-turn pockets south of Rossmoor Center Way along Seal Beach
Boulevard. The implementation of dual northbound left-turn lanes is not recommended due to the
relatively low left-turning volumes (200 in the Saturday midday peak hour) and likelihood of unequal
lane utilization. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recommends consideration of dual
left-turn lanes when left-turn volumes exceed 300 vehicles per hour (assuming moderate levels of
opposing through traffic and adjacent street traffic) and discourages dual left-turn lanes where left-
turning vehicles are not expected to evenly distribute themselves among lanes (Signalized
Intersections: Informational Guide, FHWA, August 2004).
The northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way can
be extended to 250 ft of storage with a 90 ft transition. A storage length of 250 ft can be
accommodated without shortening the adjacent southbound left-turn lane storage with some restriping
of the southbound turn pocket. A storage length of 250 ft, or two vehicle design lengths beyond the
anticipated 95th percentile queue, is recommended in an effort to keep northbound left-turn queues out
of the northbound through lanes in the unlikely instances where the 95th percentile queues may be
exceeded. This length will not affect the storage length of the southbound left-turn pocket to the south
of this pocket. The transition/taper length of these back-to-back turn pockets can be shared. The
modified median will vary between 2 and 4 ft and may not be able to accommodate landscaping.
Dual northbound left-turn lanes are not recommended at this time for the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard/Town Center Drive due to the relative infrequency of 95th percentile northbound left-turn
queues exceeding the existing storage length.
I trust that you will find this information useful in your planning efforts. If you have any questions,
please call me at (949) 553-0666.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Donson Liu
Transportation Engineer
Attachments: Table A: Site Access Queuing Summary
A: SimTraffic Turn Pocket Queuing Worksheets
B: Synchro Intersection LOS Worksheets
C: Synchro Arterial LOS Worksheets
REFERENCES
Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. August.
LSA Associates, Inc. 2015. Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis.
Placeworks. 2015. City of Los Alamitos General Plan: Mobility and Circulation Element.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table A: Site Access Queuing Summary
P:\MPA1401\xls\Additional Queuing Assessment - Mar2016.xls\City Table A .
AM Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
NBL 180 61 186 291
NBL 105 102 201 208
EBL 230 139 232 245
EBTR 230 60 84 142
EBLT 190 48 54 48
EBTR 190 50 52 50
WBLTR 230 82 169 211
NBL 180 62 192 283
NBL 105 107 202 203
EBL 230 159 239 260
EBTR 230 71 121 188
EBLT 190 56 58 57
EBTR 190 48 54 56
WBLTR 230 89 187 224
NBL 180 62 245 230
NBL 105 107 186 196
EBL 230 159 249 254
EBTR 230 71 115 147
EBLT 190 56 61 59
EBTR 190 48 54 56
WBLTR 230 89 143 165
NBL 1 180 11 114 174
NBL 2 180 50 140 191
(Shade) = Exceeds existing storage length
Intersection Movement
Storage
Length
95th Percentile Queue (ft)
Intersection HCM Analysis
AM PM Sat Mid-day
PM Sat Mid-day
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy
Existing Signal Timing
5 Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive 2.7 A 22.3 C 27.3 C
6 Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center
Way 25.5 C 12.6 B 15.8 B
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way
8.7 A 11.9 B 16.4 C
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project
Existing Signal Timing
5 Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive 2.7 A 19.1 B 27.3 C
6 Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center
Way 25.7 C 13.4 B 16.6 B
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way
9.0 A 14.1 B 20.5 C
Optimized Signal Timing with Reservicing of Northbound Lefts at Rossmoor Center Way and Town Center Drive (P.M. and Saturday Mid-Day Only)
5 Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive1 2.7 A 20.7 C 33.5 C
C
6 Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center
Way1 25.7 C 17.3 B
24.2
25.8 C
14 Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way
9.0 A 14.1 B 20.5
C
Storage Length = Storage length as measured from stop bar to the end of lane striping, ft = feet, NB = northbound, EB = eastbound, L = left, T = through, R = right, NBL 1 = outside northbound
left-turn lane, NBL 2 = inside northbound left-turn lane.
1 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 analysis results are presented at this location for this alternative as HCM 2010 methodology does not support non-National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) phasing such as split phasing or reservicing.
Dual Northbound Lefts into Town Center Drive
5 Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive
2.6 A 10.8 B
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PRIL 2016
REVISED HEALTH CLUB WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
EXPANDED QUEUING ASSESSMENT
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx «04/06/16»
ATTACHMENT A
SIMTRAFFIC TURN POCKET QUEUING WORKSHEETS
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
er
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
ve
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
er
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
ve
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
er
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
ve
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
(
6
(
5
9
,
&
,
1
*
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
(
6
(
5
9
,
&
,
1
*
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
(
6
(
5
9
,
&
,
1
*
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
er
W
a
y
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
(
6
(
5
9
,
&
,
1
*
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
v
en
u
e
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
(
6
(
5
9
,
&
,
1
*
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
I
N
G
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
4
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
I
N
G
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
nt
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
ad
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
0
:
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
&
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
/
R
o
ss
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
I
N
G
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
2
:
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
3
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
er
W
a
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
I
N
G
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
6
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
O
r
a
n
g
e
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
7
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
F
a
r
q
u
h
a
r
A
ve
n
u
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
E
S
E
R
V
I
C
I
N
G
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
1
8
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
K
a
t
e
l
l
a
A
v
en
u
e
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
-
Tw
n
C
t
r
N
B
L
D
u
a
l
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
-
Tw
n
C
t
r
N
B
L
D
u
a
l
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
LS
A
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
-
D
L
Qu
e
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
B
l
o
c
k
i
n
g
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
7
Z
Q
&
W
U
1
%
/
'
X
D
O
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
5
:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PRIL 2016
REVISED HEALTH CLUB WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
EXPANDED QUEUING ASSESSMENT
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx «04/06/16»
ATTACHMENT B
SYNCHRO INTERSECTION LOS WORKSHEETS
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
6:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
/
P
l
y
m
o
ut
h
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
A
W
S
C
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
14
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
&
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
HC
M
2
0
1
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
S
y
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
ep
o
r
t
5:
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
&
T
o
w
n
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
5
X
O
$
U
S
/
#
-
%
V
B
M
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
A PRIL 2016
REVISED HEALTH CLUB WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
EXPANDED QUEUING ASSESSMENT
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Additional Queue Analysis.City rev3.docx «04/06/16»
ATTACHMENT C
SYNCHRO ARTERIAL LOS WORKSHEETS
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
9
R
e
p
o
r
t
5
X
O
$
U
S
/
#
-
%
V
B
M
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
N
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
S
B
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Appendix Materials
104 Initial Study
APPENDIX C
Traffic Impact Analysis
HEALTH CLUB
WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
C ity of Seal Beach , California
October 2015
HEALTH CLUB
WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
C ity of Seal Beach , California
Submitted to:
MPA, Inc.
4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 490
Newport Beach, California 92660
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614-4731
(949) 553-0666
LSA Project No. MPA1401
October 2015
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
HEALTH CLUB ........................................................................................................................... 2
STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 6
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 9
ACCIDENT HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 9
HEALTH CLUB .................................................................................................................................. 14
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................... 14
UNOCCUPIED SPACE WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR .................................................... 17
RETAIL TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ............................................................ 20
EXISTING (2014) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS ....................................................... 24
EXISTING (2014) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS .......................... 24
PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR (2016) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS .................. 24
FUTURE (2035) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS ..................................................... 35
ON-SITE CIRCULATION .................................................................................................................. 50
PARKING ............................................................................................................................................ 52
EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 52
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 58
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 61
APPENDICES
A: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
B: EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
C: ACCIDENT DATA
D: EXISTING WITH FULL OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
E: EXISTING WITH FULL OCCUPANCY PLUS PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE
WORKSHEETS
F: PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR (2016) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF SERVICE
WORKSHEETS
G: PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR (2016) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY PLUS PROJECT
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
H: FUTURE (2035) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH FULL OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF
SERVICE WORKSHEETS
I: FUTURE (2035) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH FULL OCCUPANCY PLUS PROJECT
LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS
J: SITE ACCESS QUEUING WORKSHEETS
K: OBSERVED PARKING DEMAND COUNTS
L: SITE ACCESS QUEUING WORKSHEETS, WITH IMPROVEMENTS
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» ii
FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Project Location and Study Area Intersections ....................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Existing (2014) Lane Geometrics and Traffic Control ........................................................... 7
Figure 4: Existing (2014) Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM) ................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Existing (2014) Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday) .................................................................. 11
Figure 6: Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM) ................................................................................. 18
Figure 7: Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday) ................................................................................ 19
Figure 8: The Shops at Rossmoor Existing Site Plan ........................................................................... 21
Figure 9: Unoccupied Uses Trip Assignment (AM/PM) ...................................................................... 22
Figure 10: Unoccupied Uses Trip Assignment (Saturday) ................................................................... 23
Figure 11: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM) ............................... 25
Figure 12: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday) .............................. 26
Figure 13: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM) ........... 29
Figure 14: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday) .......... 30
Figure 15: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes
(AM/PM) ............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 16: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes
(Saturday) ............................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 17: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes (AM/PM) .............................................................................................................. 36
Figure 18: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes (Saturday) ............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 19: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes
(AM/PM) ............................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 20: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes
(Saturday) ............................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 21: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes (AM/PM) .............................................................................................................. 44
Figure 22: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Volumes (Saturday) ............................................................................................................. 45
Figure 23: Existing Parking Zones ....................................................................................................... 53
Figure 24: Future Parking Zones .......................................................................................................... 57
Figure 25: Recommended Left Turn Pocket Extension ....................................................................... 59
TABLES
Table A: Existing (2014) Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary .................................... 12
Table B: Existing (2014) Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service Summary ........................................ 13
Table C: North Seal Beach Total Accident History Summary ............................................................. 15
Table D: North Seal Beach High Accident Location Details (2013) ................................................... 16
Table E: Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 17
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» iii
Table F: Unoccupied Space within the Shops at Rossmoor Trip Generation ...................................... 20
Table G: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 27
Table H: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of Service
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 28
Table I: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of
Service Summary................................................................................................................. 31
Table J: Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary................................................................................................................. 32
Table K: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection Level
of Service Summary ............................................................................................................ 38
Table L: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway Level of
Service Summary................................................................................................................. 39
Table M: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Level of Service Summary .............................................................................. 40
Table N: Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Roadway Level of Service Summary .................................................................................. 41
Table O: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Intersection
Level of Service Summary .................................................................................................. 46
Table P: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Roadway
Level of Service Summary .................................................................................................. 47
Table Q: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Intersection Level of Service Summary .............................................................................. 48
Table R: Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour
Roadway Level of Service Summary .................................................................................. 49
Table S: Site Access Queuing Summary .............................................................................................. 51
Table T: Weekday Parking Utilization Summary ................................................................................ 54
Table U: Weekend Parking Utilization Summary ................................................................................ 54
Table V: Future Weekday Parking Demand......................................................................................... 55
Table W: Future Weekend Parking Demand ........................................................................................ 56
Table X: Site Access with Improvements Queuing Summary ............................................................. 60
Table Y: Project Fair Share Calculation ............................................................................................... 61
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) has prepared the following traffic/circulation and parking analysis to
identify any potential traffic and parking impacts resulting from the development of the proposed
health club (project) in the City of Seal Beach (City). LSA has prepared this analysis consistent with
the City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (March 2010) and the City’s General Plan (December
2003).
The project proposes the construction of a 37,000-square-foot (sf) health club within the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center. This study analyzes the weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid-day peak hour
levels of service (LOS) at 15 study area intersections and 11 roadway segments for the following
scenarios:
1. Existing (2014) conditions with current occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
2. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
3. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
plus the proposed project
4. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center
5. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed project
6. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center
7. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed project
Based on the results of this traffic analysis, all study area facilities are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory LOS per City standards. This traffic analysis found that the northbound left-turn pocket at
the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way is currently experiencing queuing
issues and would require improvements. As a result, improvements have been recommended for this
intersection to extend the storage lane to accommodate demand.
Based on the parking assessment, the proposed parking supply is anticipated to sufficiently meet the
demands of the estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor and the proposed project per City
standards.
INTRODUCTION
LSA has prepared this traffic/circulation analysis within a study area along Seal Beach Boulevard
north of the Interstate 405 (I-405) freeway in the City of Seal Beach in order to identify any potential
traffic impacts resulting from the development of the proposed project. The study area was developed
in coordination with the City staff, which included intersections and roadway segments along Seal
Beach Boulevard and local access roads adjacent to the proposed project. Per direction from the City,
LSA also evaluated recent accident data in the study area and conducted a parking assessment for the
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 2
proposed project. The traffic analysis has been prepared consistent with the City Traffic Impact
Study Guidelines (March 2010) and the City’s General Plan (December 2003).
The traffic analysis reviewed the weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend peak-hour LOS at study
intersections and roadway segments for the following scenarios:
1. Existing (2014) conditions with current occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
2. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
3. Existing (2014) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center
plus the proposed project
4. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center
5. Project Completion Year (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed project
6. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center
7. Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at
Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed project
Health Club
The proposed project consists of 37,000 sf of health club uses to be developed within the existing
Shops at Rossmoor retail center along the south side of Rossmoor Center Way between West Road
and Sprouts Farmers Market as shown on Figure 1. The project site is bound by residential uses to the
north and west. Access to the project will be provided by the site adjacent intersections of West Road
at Rossmoor Center Way and Project Driveway at Rossmoor Center Way. The development of the
proposed project would require the loss of 14 parking spaces.
STUDY AREA
As shown on Figure 2, Seal Beach Boulevard is a north-south arterial that provides access to both
residential and commercial (retail) uses within the City of Seal Beach. Seal Beach Boulevard is a six-
lane Major Arterial per the City’s General Plan, which provides connection to the I-405 freeway as
well as the Interstate 605 (I-605) freeway (via Katella Avenue). The 1.2-mile (mi) section of Seal
Beach Boulevard between I-405 and Bradbury Road provides connection to commercial uses such as
office, retail, and hotel, and residential uses (both east and west of Seal Beach Boulevard) via local
collector streets such as Bradbury Road, Lampson Avenue, Rossmoor Center Way, Town Center
Drive and St. Cloud Drive. There are retail/commercial uses on either side of Seal Beach Boulevard
between St. Cloud Drive and Bradbury Road. The Shops at Rossmoor retail/commercial center west
of Seal Beach Boulevard recently underwent modifications and changes at several locations and is
close to full occupancy with only one unoccupied retail space of 2,400 sf. The existing traffic along
Seal Beach Boulevard includes the traffic from the occupied retail space within the Shops at
F I G U R E 1
Site PlanSOURCE: robinson hill architecture, inc.
FEET
90450
N
I:\MPA1401\G\Site Plan.cdr (10/1/15)
Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
LEGEND
- Project Site
FIGURE 2
I:\MPA1401\G\Location & Study Ints.cdr (10/1/15)
Project Location and
StudyArea IntersectionsSOURCE: ESRI
N
Rossmoor Center Way
Town Center Way
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
22
405
8
LEGEND
- StudyArea Intersection
- Project Site
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
l
v
d
5
9
10 1413
15
12
4
3
2
1
7
6
8
11
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 5
Rossmoor as well as residential traffic from the Rossmoor community, but does not include traffic
generated by the retail space that is currently unoccupied.
In order to analyze the traffic conditions along Seal Beach Boulevard when the Shops at Rossmoor is
fully occupied, traffic for the unoccupied retail space was added to existing traffic volumes.
Based on discussion with City staff and the criteria provided in the City’s Traffic Impact Study
Guidelines, the following roadway segments and intersections are analyzed for the study:
Roadway Segments:
Seal Beach Boulevard between:
○ Rossmoor Way and Bradbury Road
○ Bradbury Road and Rossmoor Center Way
○ Rossmoor Center Way and Town Center Drive
○ Town Center Drive and St. Cloud Drive
○ St. Cloud Drive and Lampson Avenue
○ Lampson Avenue and I-405 Northbound ramps
St. Cloud Drive between:
○ Seal Beach Boulevard and Yellowtail Drive
Montecito Road between:
○ Yellowtail Drive and Copa De Oro Drive
○ Copa De Oro Drive and Mainway Drive
○ Mainway Drive and Bradbury Road
Rossmoor Center Way between:
○ Montecito Road and Seal Beach Boulevard
Intersections:
1. Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Southbound ramps
2. Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Northbound ramps
3. Seal Beach Boulevard/Lampson Avenue
4. Seal Beach Boulevard/St. Cloud Drive
5. Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive
6. Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way
7. Seal Beach Boulevard/Bradbury Road
8. Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Drive (unsignalized)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 6
9. Montecito Road/Copa De Oro Drive (unsignalized)
10. Montecito Road/Mainway Drive-Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
11. Montecito Road/Bradbury Road (unsignalized)
12. West Road/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
13. Project Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
14. Internal Driveway/Rossmoor Center Way (unsignalized)
15. Internal Driveway/Town Center Way (unsignalized)
Figure 3 shows the existing intersection lane geometrics at all 15 intersections.
METHODOLOGY
To determine the peak hour intersection operations at signalized intersections within the study area,
intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology was used per City of Seal Beach Traffic Study
Guidelines. The ICU methodology compares the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios of conflicting turn
movements at an intersection, sums these critical conflicting v/c ratios for each intersection approach,
and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A
represents free-flow activity and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. The ICUs were developed
for this study using the Traffix (Version 8.0) software.
According to the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, LOS at an intersection is
considered to be unsatisfactory when the ICU exceeds 0.90 (LOS D). As such, improvements are
recommended at locations that operate at LOS E or F. The relationship of ICU (v/c ratio) to LOS is
demonstrated in the following table:
LOS Operating Condition
ICU
(v/c ratio)
A Free flowing, virtually no delay. Minimal traffic <0.60
B Free flow and choice of lanes. Delays are minimal. All cars clear intersection
easily. 0.60–0.69
C State flow. Queue at signal starting to get relatively long. Delays starting to
become a factor but still within “acceptable” limits. 0.70–0.79
D
Approaching unstable flow. Queues at intersection are quite long but most cars
clear intersection on their green signal. Occasionally, several vehicles must wait
for a second green signal. Congestion is moderate.
0.80–0.89
E Severe congestion and delay. Most of the available capacity is used. Many cars
must wait through a complete signal cycle to clear the intersection. 0.90–0.99
F Excessive delay and congestion. Most cars must wait through more than one on
one signal cycle. Queues are very long and drivers are obviously irritated. >1.00
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
v/c = volume-to-capacity
1 Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps 2 Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 NB Ramps 3 Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av 4 Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr 5 Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
6 Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy 7 Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd 8 Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr 9 Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr 10 Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
11 Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd 12 West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy 13 Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy 14 Internal Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy 15 Internal Dwy/Town Center Wy
FIGURE 3
Legend
SignalRight Turn Overlap Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Stop SignDefacto Right Turn Lane
Free Right Turn Existing (2014) Lane Geometrics and Traffic Control Devices
ad
bd
ac
e
xvvvt ab
e
accce
wvvt ad wvvt be bc
wvvt
wu
xvvvt aa
d
e
vvvtt aa
e
aaccce accd
f
f bd f bd
af wvvt ad
ae
e
aaccd
f bd d g
wu bd b
ad
accd accd g
bd wu
cdbd
ccce
d
u aef
d g bd f
yb
F
F
F
O
O
O
D
D
O
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-03 Existing geo.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 8
Per City guidelines, the following project related increases in intersection ICU shall be deemed as
“significant” and require mitigation:
Existing ICU
Project Related
Increase in ICU
0.00-0.69 0.06
0.70-0.79 0.04
0.80-0.89 0.02
0.90+ 0.01
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
In addition to the ICU methodology of calculating signalized intersection LOS, the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 2000) methodology was used to determine the LOS at the signalized ramp
intersections that are governed by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and at
unsignalized study area intersections. The HCM 2000 unsignalized intersection methodology presents
LOS in terms of control delay (in seconds per vehicle). The resulting delay is expressed in terms of
LOS, as in the ICU methodology. The relationship of delay to LOS is demonstrated in the following
table:
LOS
Unsignalized
Intersection Delay
(seconds)
A ≤10.0
B >10.0 and ≤15.0
C >15.0 and ≤25.0
D >25.0 and ≤35.0
E >35.0 and ≤50.0
F >50.0
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization
LOS = level of service
It should be noted that this study focuses on capacity (i.e., ICU). The HCM method is another method
to evaluate operational conditions at signalized intersections, such as signal timing and queue lengths
at turn lanes. While briefly discussed, this operational tool is not the focus of this study, although it is
used to evaluate queuing at intersections as discussed later in this report.
For roadway segments situated between intersections, LOS is described via a “mid-block roadway
link” analysis. The Highway Capacity Software Version 5.2 (HCS) was utilized to analyze roadway
segments in the study area consistent with Chapter 21 of the HCM. The basic input data for
conducting a roadway analysis include the number of lanes and peak-hour volumes along the
segments.
Roadway segments have uniform traffic conditions and roadway characteristics. The measure used to
provide an estimate of LOS is density, where density is calculated from the average vehicle flow rate
per lane and the average speed. The following shows the correlation between LOS and flow density:
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 9
LOS Density (pc/mi/ln)
A 11
B >11–18
C >18–26
D >26–35
E >35–45
F >45
LOS = level of service
pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
For the purposes of this study, LOS D is considered satisfactory on all study area roadway segments.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid-day peak-hour traffic conditions and LOS were
analyzed for Existing (2014) conditions.
LSA obtained intersection turn-movement counts at the 15 study area intersections for the weekday
a.m. peak hour (7:00 a.m.–9:00 a.m.), the p.m. peak hour (4:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.), and a weekend
(Saturday) mid-day peak hour (11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.). Daily 24-hour counts were conducted for the
11 study area roadway segments in between the study area intersections. The counts were conducted
by an independent car count company (National Data & Surveying Services [NDS]) for a weekday
and weekend (Saturday) in November 2014. The traffic counts are included in Appendix A. The trips
generated from surrounding existing land uses, which consist of residential and retail uses east and
west of Seal Beach Boulevard, are included in the counts. Count data was collected after the
completion of the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge, outside of the West County Connector project detour
periods that affect the flow of traffic along Seal Beach Boulevard, and before the week of the
Thanksgiving holiday. LSA collected geometric, traffic control, and posted speed limit data at all
study area locations. Figures 4 and 5 show the Existing (2014) peak-hour volumes at the study area
intersections for weekday and weekend conditions, respectively.
A summary of Existing (2014) LOS for intersections and roadway segments are presented in
Tables A and B, respectively. The LOS worksheets for Existing (2014) conditions are included in
Appendix B. As Tables A and B indicate, all study area intersections and roadway segments are
currently operating at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better).
Accident History
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.
424 / 485 533 / 533 0 / 6 15 / 90
47 / 42 80 / 13 600 / 528 7 / 30 3 / 39
540 / 315 304 / 172 491 / 387 59 / 189 14 / 125
92 / 169 7 / 64 103 / 107 5 / 82
17 / 48 5 / 56 3 / 1 2 / 38
6 / 12 11 / 88 571 / 351 21 / 205
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
40 / 11 22 / 15 2 / 11 44 / 81
7 / 2 25 / 9 366 / 419 0 / 8 40 / 45
12 / 10 51 / 55 43 / 44 1 / 0 13 / 29
89 / 188 276 / 161 597 / 429 58 / 22 93 / 35
2 / 1 13 / 10 0 / 4 6 / 4 73 / 42
86 / 124 103 / 62 129 / 54 79 / 47
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
146 / 75 39 / 81
29 / 22 96 / 146 99 / 164 52 / 93 51 / 246
159 / 150 4 / 21 7 / 21 51 / 148 28 / 76
10 / 3 122 / 91 127 / 101 35 / 27
29 / 15 12 / 17 104 / 81
1 / 3 15 / 21
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 4
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
11
1
0
/
9
1
2
88
/
1
5
2
12
8
/
3
5
2
43
4
/
4
6
0
12
/
1
7
81
6
/
1
0
2
5
4
/
1
4
15
/
1
0
9
24
3
/
3
8
5
10
8
/
4
4
97
6
/
1
2
6
0
15
/
8
6
15
1
2
/
1
3
8
7
36
2
/
3
4
8
14
5
9
/
1
4
6
6
55
/
1
5
3
23
/
1
5
4
82
/
3
8
21
3
/
1
7
5
32
/
4
9
32
/
2
8
4
9
/
4
2
11
/
3
8
34
/
1
6
6
12
/
4
7
11
/
6
3
4
/
5
1
23
/
3
4
14
/
3
7
62
/
6
5
1
/
3
12
/
1
9
2
/
7
13
6
/
9
5
22
4
/
1
0
3
5
/
1
1
2
/
2
5
5
/
2
13
7
/
1
1
3
91
/
3
9
19
1
/
1
4
1
23
/
3
8
80
/
4
5
52
/
4
1
10
8
/
4
5
16
9
/
1
6
3
0
/
2
4
/
1
0
22
/
4
8
13
9
2
/
1
5
1
0
17
0
/
1
7
5
20
/
6
9
28
7
/
2
0
1
14
3
2
/
1
5
0
0
4
/
2
7
14
1
/
1
2
1
13
2
6
/
1
6
4
3
15
/
2
3
3
/
5
80
/
1
3
6
63
/
1
6
4
13
4
6
/
1
5
3
1
26
/
3
5
13
1
1
/
1
2
9
4
19
/
9
1
45
0
/
3
3
5
13
1
2
/
1
2
5
9
29
1
/
2
0
9
40
/
8
0
12
4
1
/
1
5
3
3
15
0
7
/
1
4
1
3
36
7
/
6
3
9
12
7
6
/
1
4
3
9
20
6
/
3
6
0
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-04 Exist Curr Occ AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
497 563 9 98
25 5 468 23 84
461 300 290 184 181
163 7 104 124
37 12 1 75
17 8 332 209
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
19 6 7 84
3 8 395 7 32
11 58 38 3 28
214 136 383 25 25
12 4 3 6 40
191 81 42 26
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
47 89
18 115 123 86 414
103 12 40 231 103
3 100 107 21
12 23 2 88
6 36
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 5
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
89
3
13
2
24
5
39
6
21
91
2
16 15
8
32
924
12
5
4
13
5
11
3
5
31
9
15
2
3
16
6
27
8
20 14
9
56
32
1
52
60
21
7 61 8441
26 46 97
4 395
10
7
10
0 1029
3 87 46
14
1 37562654
17
9
2
937
14
0
1
10
5
61
19
5
13
1
3
46 81
14
7
5
13
4
17
9
20
9
13
4
7
34
10
4
0
10
5
27
7
11
9
5
23
0
62 13
2
6
14
2
0
42
5
15
3
4
28
7
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-05 Exist Curr Occ Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
38
.
9
D
4
1
.
0
D
4
0
.
6
D
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
37
.
5
D
3
6
.
0
D
3
5
.
6
D
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
7
1
3
C
0
.
6
92B
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
4
B
0
.
6
9
4
B
0.636B
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
4
6
8
A
0
.
7
5
5
C
0.848D
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
4
7
A
0
.
6
7
4
B
0
.
7
1
4
C
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0
.
7
5
8
C
0
.
6
9
7
B
0
.
6
2
4B
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
3
B
1
0
.
7
B
1
0
.
2
B
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
0
B
8
.
8
A
8
.
8
A
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
1
2
.
4
B
9
.
5
A
9
.
1
A
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
1
2
.
5
B
9
.
3
A
8
.
8
A
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
0
A
8
.
0
A
7
.
8
A
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9
.
3
A
9
.
1
A
9
.
2
A
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
6
A
1
1
.
5
B
1
5
.1C
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7
.
4
A
1
0
.
8
B
1
5
.
8
C
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
se
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
OS
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
ts
Ta
b
l
e
A
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
ve
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
A
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
8
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
3
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
6
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
9
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
3
A
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
4
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
9
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
2
4
.
4
-
C
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
7
.
5
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
9
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
2
9
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
9
-
A
3
1
.1 -A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
28
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
2
7
.
4
-
A
2
7
.
3
-
A
28.0-A
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
B
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
M
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
30
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
nd
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
B
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 14
City staff provided Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) accident data from the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the years of 2013 and 2014 in the City of Seal Beach. It should
be noted that the 2014 data represented only 11 months of data. As such, this study will focus on the
accidents within the study area identified in 2013.
The total number of accidents reported within the study area each year is provided in Table C.
As this table indicates, 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 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.
Construction of improvements at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and the I-405 southbound
on/off ramps were recently completed in 2014. The effect of these improvements helped reduce the
number of accidents at this intersection from six in 2013 to only three in the first 11 months of 2014.
Improvements south of the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue were recently
constructed in 2014. The improvements included additional northbound and southbound through
lanes along Seal Beach Boulevard over the I-405 freeway. The effects of these improvements not
only improved the LOS, but could also reduce the number of accidents at this intersection. No
accidents were reported in the first 11 months of 2014.
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
this report, 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.
HEALTH CLUB
The proposed project will consist of 37,000 sf of health/fitness club uses and is bounded on the north
by Rossmoor Center Drive, on the west by West Road, and on the east by Sprouts Farmers Market.
The project site is located in the northwest parking lot of The Shops at Rossmoor retail center. It
should be noted that this parking lot serves as an employee/overflow lot behind all of the existing
adjacent stores and does not provide direct access to Sprouts, Marshalls or PetsMart. The main access
points to the project site are located on either side of the proposed building at West Road and the
existing driveway along the south side of Rossmoor Center Drive west of Sprouts Farmers Market.
Trip Generation and Distribution
The generation and distribution of trips associated with the proposed project site are discussed below.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
2014 1 2013
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 SB On/Off Ramps36
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 NB On/Off Ramps41
Seal Beach Boulevard/Lampson Avenue05
Seal Beach Boulevard/St. Cloud Drive45
Seal Beach Boulevard/Town Center Drive11
Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way-Plymouth Drive14
Seal Beach Boulevard/Bradbury Road00
Yellowtail Drive/St. Cloud Drive00
Data is presented in total number of accidents per location
1 2014 Data represents January - November only
= Location will be further analyzed in the traffic study
Table C - North Seal Beach Total Accident History Summary
Year
Location
P:\SEA1201\LOS Summary+other tables.xls\C (12/19/2014)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Primary Collision
LocationFactor
Unsafe SpeedRear End00
Unsafe SpeedRear End10
(6 Total Accidents)Improper TurnBroadside00
Unsafe SpeedRear End00Impaired
Unsafe SpeedNot Stated00
Not StatedSideswipe00
Total:10
Improper TurnHit Object00
Unsafe SpeedRear End10
(5 Total Accidents)Unsafe SpeedRear End00
Improper TurnSideswipe00
UnknownSideswipe00
Total:10
Not StatedSideswipe00
Improper TurnSideswipe00
(5 Total Accidents)Improper TurnSideswipe10
ROW AutoSideswipe20
Unsafe SpeedRear End00
Total:30
Table D - North Seal Beach High Accident Location Details (2013)
Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 SB
On/Off Ramps
Seal Beach
Boulevard/Lampson Avenue
Seal Beach Boulevard/St.
Cloud Drive
OtherFatalityInjuryType
P:\SEA1201\LOS Summary+other tables.xls\D(12/19/2014)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 17
Trip Generation. Trip generation for the proposed project is calculated based on rates contained in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (Ninth Edition), which is a standard
reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for estimating the trip generation potential of
new developments. The project is classified as Health/Fitness club use (ITE Land Use 492). The
project’s potential trip generation was calculated using the average rates (per 1,000 sf).
As indicated in Table E, the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,218 daily trips, 52 weekday
a.m. peak hour trips, 131 weekday p.m. peak hour trips, and 103 Saturday mid-day peak hour trips.
Table E: Project Trip Generation
Size Unit ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate1
Health Fitness Club TSF 32.93 0.71 0.71 1.41 2.01 1.52 3.53 1.25 1.53 2.78
Trip Generation
Health Fitness Club 37.000 TSF 1,218 26 26 52 74 56 131 46 57 103
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Ninth Edition (2012).
ADT = average daily traffic
TSF = thousand square feet
Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment. The project trips were distributed throughout the study
area using information from the County’s current travel demand model (Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model [OCTAM]). Using the travel demand model, a process known as
“select zone assignment” is applied to distribute and assign trips from a specific zone through the
circulation network to an origin.
The travel demand model goes through several iterations to develop the most likely distribution
pattern that takes into account several factors such as the shortest distance between origin and
destination, availability of capacity, and type of uses, etc., before assigning the trips. 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 is distributed as follows:
43 percent of traffic will travel north along Seal Beach Boulevard, 49 percent will travel 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 illustrate the health club trip
assignment for weekday and weekend conditions based on the trip generation and the trip distribution
identified above.
UNOCCUPIED SPACE WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
In order to evaluate the adjacent Shops at Rossmoor retail center at full occupancy, traffic from the
unoccupied space in the northern part of the retail center has been developed. The unoccupied portion
of the Shops at Rossmoor consists of 2,400 sf of retail use and is located between Pure Barre and
3 / 10 4 / 11 3 / 9
1 / 3
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
1 / 2
1 / 1 1 / 2
1 / 4 0 / 1 1 / 2
11 / 25 1 / 3 1 / 2 1 / 2
11 / 25
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
23 / 65 23 / 65
3 / 7 23 / 50
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 6
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
2
/
5
4
/
9
2
/
7
11
/
2
5
6
/
1
7
1
/
4
11
/
3
3
11
/
3
3
1
/
2
23
/
5
0
1
/
2
3
/
6
1
/
2
1
/
3
1
/
3
0
/
1
1
/
2
11
/
2
5
11
/
3
2
11
/
3
3
11
/
3
2
11
/
2
5
1
/
2
6
/
1
4
3
/
6
10
/
2
1
3
/
7
10
/
2
8
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-06 Project Only AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
6 7 6
3
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
2
1 2
2 1 2
25 3 1 1
25
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
41 41
5 50
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 7
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
21 7
17
21
20
252146
25
20 2
1
22
2 6 50
1
2 21 21
9
4
25
10
5
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-07 Project Only Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 20
Chick-fil-A just west of Seal Beach Boulevard. The location of the unoccupied space in relation to the
rest of the retail center is shown in Figure 8.
Retail Trip Generation and Distribution
The generation and distribution of trips associated with this unoccupied space are discussed below.
Trip Generation. Trip generation for the unoccupied space is calculated based on rates contained in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (Ninth Edition), which is a standard
reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for estimating the trip generation potential of
new developments.
The unoccupied space is classified as part of the shopping center use (ITE Land Use 820). The
potential trip generation was calculated using the average rates (per 1,000 sf) as opposed to the fitted
curve equation as the equations are inappropriate for the size of the unoccupied space and would
result in an unrealistic estimation of potential trips. As indicated in Table F, the unoccupied space is
estimated to generate 102 daily trips, 2 weekday a.m. peak hour trips, 9 weekday p.m. peak hour trips,
and 12 Saturday mid-day peak hour trips.
Table F: Unoccupied Space within the Shops at Rossmoor Trip Generation
Size Unit ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Saturday Peak
Hour
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate1
Shopping Center TSF 42.70 0.60 0.36 0.96 1.78 1.93 3.71 2.51 2.31 4.82
Trip Generation
Retail 2,400 TSF 102 1 1 2 4 5 9 6 6 12
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Ninth Edition (2012).
ADT = average daily traffic
TSF = thousand square feet
In an effort to conservatively evaluate the trip generation potential of the unoccupied space,
reductions for pass-by and internal trips were not taken.
Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment. The new retail trips were distributed throughout the study
area using the same information from the County’s current travel demand model (Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model [OCTAM]) that was utilized for the proposed project.
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the trip assignment for weekday and weekend conditions based on the trip
generation and the trip distribution identified previously. Trips generated by the unoccupied parcel
were added to the base traffic volumes to develop “with Full Occupancy” traffic volumes.
FIGURE 8
Th
e
S
h
o
p
s
a
t
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
SO
U
R
C
E
:
T
h
e
S
h
o
p
s
a
t
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
s
h
o
p
s
a
t
r
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
.
c
o
m
N
I:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
G
\
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
.
c
d
r
(
1
0
/
1
/
1
5
)
He
a
l
t
h
C
l
u
b
w
i
t
h
i
n
T
h
e
S
h
o
p
s
a
t
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
LE
G
E
N
D
-
U
n
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
P
a
r
c
e
l
0 / 1 0 / 1
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 9
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Unoccupied Uses Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
0
/
2
0
/
1
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
/
2
0
/
2
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
/
2
0
/
2
0
/
2
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
/
1
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-09 Unoccupied AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
1 1 1
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 10
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Unoccupied Uses Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
2 1
2
3
3
311
3
3
3 3
1
1
3
1
1
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-10 Unoccupied Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 24
EXISTING (2014) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY CONDITIONS
To represent the full potential of traffic that could traverse Seal Beach Boulevard and the study area
in the existing condition, existing weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid-day peak-hour traffic
conditions were modified based on the additional traffic from the unoccupied space for the Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy scenario.
The trip assignment of the unoccupied portion of the retail center was added to the Existing (2014)
counts to develop the volumes for the Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy conditions. Figures 11
and 12 show the Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy condition peak-hour volumes at study area
intersections for weekday and weekend conditions.
A summary of Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy conditions LOS at study area intersections and
roadway segments are presented in Tables G and H, respectively. The LOS worksheets for Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy conditions are included in Appendix D. As the tables indicate, all study
area intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or
better).
EXISTING (2014) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
In order to identify any potential project impacts to traffic and circulation, project traffic was added to
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy traffic. The resulting Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus
Project conditions weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid-day peak-hour traffic volumes are shown on
Figures 13 and 14, respectively.
A summary of Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project LOS for study area intersections and
roadway segments is presented in Tables I and J, respectively. The LOS worksheets for Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions are included in Appendix E. As the tables
indicate, all study area intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to continue to operate at
satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) with the addition of project traffic.
PROJECT COMPLETION YEAR (2016) WITH FULL OCCUPANCY
CONDITIONS
According to the project applicant, the proposed project will be completed in 2016. In order to present
a near-term 2016 traffic condition, an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year was added to
existing traffic volumes along with traffic from the unoccupied parcel within The Shops at Rossmoor.
This growth rate was reached through consultation with City staff. It should be noted that City staff
also provided information on one nearby cumulative development of a new car wash within the Mobil
gas station on the northeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way/Plymouth
Drive. Additional traffic from this development was not included in this analysis as the traffic counts
taken in November 2014 have taken into account the existing car wash within the Mobil gas station.
The resulting Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy conditions weekday a.m., p.m.,
and weekend mid-day peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figures 15 and 16, respectively.
424 / 485 533 / 534 0 / 6 15 / 90
47 / 42 80 / 13 600 / 528 7 / 30 3 / 39
540 / 315 304 / 172 491 / 387 59 / 189 14 / 125
92 / 169 7 / 64 103 / 107 5 / 82
17 / 48 5 / 56 3 / 1 2 / 38
6 / 12 11 / 88 571 / 351 21 / 205
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av 4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
40 / 11 22 / 15 2 / 11 44 / 81
7 / 2 25 / 9 366 / 419 0 / 8 40 / 45
12 / 10 51 / 55 43 / 44 1 / 0 13 / 29
89 / 188 276 / 161 597 / 429 58 / 22 93 / 35
2 / 1 13 / 10 0 / 4 6 / 4 73 / 42
86 / 124 103 / 62 129 / 54 79 / 47
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd 8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr 9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
146 / 75 39 / 81
29 / 22 96 / 146 99 / 164 52 / 93 51 / 246
159 / 150 4 / 21 7 / 21 51 / 148 28 / 76
10 / 3 122 / 91 127 / 101 35 / 27
29 / 15 12 / 17 104 / 81
1 / 3 15 / 21
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd 12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 11
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
12
4
1
/
1
5
3
5
15
0
7
/
1
4
1
5
36
7
/
6
4
0
12
7
6
/
1
4
4
0
20
6
/
3
6
0
80
/
1
3
6
63
/
1
6
4
13
4
6
/
1
5
3
3
26
/
3
5
13
1
1
/
1
2
9
6
19
/
9
1
45
0
/
3
3
5
13
1
2
/
1
2
6
0
29
1
/
2
0
9
40
/
8
0
13
9
2
/
1
5
1
2
17
0
/
1
7
5
20
/
6
9
28
7
/
2
0
1
14
3
2
/
1
5
0
2
4
/
2
7
14
1
/
1
2
1
13
2
6
/
1
6
4
5
15
/
2
3
3
/
5
0
/
2
4
/
1
0
22
/
4
8
5
/
2
13
7
/
1
1
3
91
/
3
9
19
1
/
1
4
1
23
/
3
8
80
/
4
5
52
/
4
1
10
8
/
4
5
16
9
/
1
6
3
2
/
7
13
6
/
9
5
22
4
/
1
0
3
5
/
1
1
2
/
2
5
4
/
5
1
23
/
3
4
14
/
3
7
62
/
6
5
1
/
3
12
/
1
9
32
/
2
8
4
9
/
4
2
11
/
3
8
34
/
1
6
6
12
/
4
7
11
/
6
3
82
/
3
8
21
3
/
1
7
5
32
/
4
9
15
/
8
6
15
1
2
/
1
3
8
9
36
2
/
3
4
8
14
5
9
/
1
4
6
8
55
/
1
5
3
23
/
1
5
4
12
8
/
3
5
2
43
4
/
4
6
1
12
/
1
7
81
6
/
1
0
2
5
4
/
1
4
15
/
1
0
9
24
3
/
3
8
5
10
8
/
4
4
97
6
/
1
2
6
1
88
/
1
5
2
11
1
0
/
9
1
2
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-11 Exist Full Occ AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
498 564 9 98
25 5 469 23 84
461 300 290 184 181
163 7 104 124
37 12 1 75
17 8 332 209
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
19 6 7 84
3 8 395 7 32
11 58 38 3 28
214 136 383 25 25
12 4 3 6 40
191 81 42 26
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
47 89
18 115 123 86 414
103 12 40 231 103
3 100 107 21
12 23 2 88
6 36
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 12
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
89
4
13
2
24
5
39
7
21
91
3
16 15
8
32
924
12
5
5
13
5
11
3
8
31
9
15
2
6
16
6
27
8
20 14
9
56
32
1
52
60
21
7 61 8441
26 46 97
4 395
10
7
10
0 1029
3 87 46
14
1 37562654
17
9
2
937
14
0
4
10
5
61
19
5
13
1
6
46 81
14
7
8
13
4
17
9
20
9
13
5
0
34
10
4
3
10
5
27
7
11
9
6
23
1
62 13
2
9
14
2
2
42
6
15
3
6
28
7
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-12 Exist Full Occ Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
38
.
9
D
4
1
.
0
D
4
0
.
6
D
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
37
.
5
D
3
6
.
0
D
3
5
.
7
D
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
7
1
4
C
0
.
6
93B
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
4
B
0
.
6
9
5
B
0.637B
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
4
6
8
A
0
.
7
5
5
C
0.849D
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
4
7
A
0
.
6
7
5
B
0
.
7
1
4
C
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0
.
7
5
8
C
0
.
6
9
7
B
0
.
6
2
5B
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
3
B
1
0
.
7
B
1
0
.
2
B
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
0
B
8
.
8
A
8
.
8
A
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
1
2
.
4
B
9
.
5
A
9
.
1
A
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
1
2
.
5
B
9
.
3
A
8
.
8
A
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
0
A
8
.
0
A
7
.
8
A
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9
.
3
A
9
.
1
A
9
.
2
A
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
6
A
1
1
.
5
B
1
5
.1C
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7
.
4
A
1
0
.
8
B
1
5
.
8
C
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
se
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
OS
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
ts
Ta
b
l
e
G
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
G
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
8
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
3
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
7
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
9
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
3
A
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
4
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
9
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
2
4
.
4
-
C
2
6
.
6
-
C
2
7
.
5
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
9
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
2
9
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
9
-
A
3
1
.1 -A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
28
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
2
7
.
4
-
A
2
7
.
3
-
A
28.0-A
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
H
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
W
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
H
ou
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
M
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
30
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
nd
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
H
428 / 495 537 / 545 0 / 6 15 / 90
47 / 42 80 / 13 603 / 537 7 / 30 3 / 39
540 / 315 304 / 172 491 / 387 59 / 189 14 / 125
92 / 169 7 / 64 103 / 107 5 / 82
17 / 48 5 / 56 3 / 1 2 / 38
6 / 12 11 / 88 572 / 354 21 / 205
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av 4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
40 / 11 22 / 15 2 / 11 45 / 83
7 / 2 25 / 9 367 / 423 1 / 9 41 / 47
12 / 10 51 / 55 43 / 44 1 / 1 14 / 31
100 / 213 276 / 161 598 / 432 58 / 22 93 / 35
2 / 1 13 / 10 0 / 4 7 / 6 74 / 44
97 / 149 103 / 62 129 / 54 79 / 47
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd 8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr 9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
146 / 75 39 / 81
29 / 22 96 / 146 99 / 164 75 / 158 51 / 246
159 / 150 4 / 21 30 / 86 51 / 148 28 / 76
10 / 3 122 / 91 127 / 101 35 / 27
29 / 15 15 / 24 127 / 131
1 / 3 15 / 21
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd 12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 13
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
11
1
2
/
9
1
8
88
/
1
5
2
12
8
/
3
5
2
43
8
/
4
6
9
12
/
1
7
81
8
/
1
0
3
2
4
/
1
4
15
/
1
0
9
24
3
/
3
8
5
10
8
/
4
4
98
2
/
1
2
7
7
15
/
8
6
15
2
4
/
1
4
2
2
36
3
/
3
5
2
14
7
1
/
1
5
0
1
55
/
1
5
3
23
/
1
5
4
82
/
3
8
21
3
/
1
7
5
33
/
5
1
32
/
2
8
4
9
/
4
2
11
/
3
8
34
/
1
6
6
12
/
4
7
11
/
6
3
4
/
5
1
23
/
3
4
14
/
3
7
62
/
6
5
1
/
3
35
/
6
9
2
/
7
13
7
/
9
7
22
4
/
1
0
3
5
/
1
1
5
/
3
1
5
/
2
13
8
/
1
1
5
91
/
3
9
19
1
/
1
4
1
24
/
4
1
80
/
4
5
52
/
4
1
10
8
/
4
5
17
0
/
1
6
6
0
/
3
4
/
1
0
22
/
4
8
14
0
4
/
1
5
3
7
17
0
/
1
7
5
20
/
6
9
28
8
/
2
0
3
14
3
2
/
1
5
0
2
4
/
2
7
14
1
/
1
2
1
13
3
8
/
1
6
7
7
15
/
2
3
3
/
5
91
/
1
6
9
74
/
1
9
6
13
4
6
/
1
5
3
3
26
/
3
5
13
2
3
/
1
3
2
2
19
/
9
1
45
1
/
3
3
7
13
1
8
/
1
2
7
4
29
4
/
2
1
5
40
/
8
0
12
5
3
/
1
5
6
1
15
1
7
/
1
4
3
6
37
0
/
6
4
6
12
8
6
/
1
4
6
8
20
6
/
3
6
0
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-13 Exist Full Occ+Proj AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
504 571 9 98
25 5 474 23 84
461 300 290 184 181
163 7 104 124
37 12 1 75
17 8 335 209
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
19 6 7 86
3 8 397 8 34
11 58 38 4 30
239 136 386 25 25
12 4 3 7 42
216 81 42 26
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
47 89
18 115 123 127 414
103 12 81 231 103
3 100 107 21
12 28 2 138
6 36
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 14
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
89
9
13
2
24
5
40
5
21
91
7
16 15
8
32
924
12
6
6
13
5
11
5
9
32
1
15
4
7
16
6
27
8
20 14
9
57
32
1
52
60
21
7 61 8441
26 46 97
4 895
10
9
10
0 1035
3 88 46
14
1 39562654
18
1
2
937
14
2
8
10
5
61
19
7
13
1
6
46 81
14
9
8
13
4
20
0
22
9
13
5
0
34
10
6
8
10
5
27
9
12
1
0
23
6
62 13
5
4
14
4
3
43
3
15
5
4
28
7
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-14 Exist Full Occ+Proj Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
∆
IC
U
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
ICUICU / DelayLOS∆ ICU
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
38
.
9
D
4
1
.
0
D
4
0
.
6
D
3
8
.
9
D
-
4
1
.
3
D
-
4
0
.
7
D
-
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
37
.
5
D
3
6
.
0
D
3
5
.
7
D
3
7
.
6
D
-
3
6
.
3
D
-
3
5
.
9
D
-
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
7
1
4
C
0
.
6
9
3
B
0
.
7
5
5
C
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
7
2
1
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
7
0
0
B
0
.
0
0
7
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
4
B
0
.
6
9
5
B
0
.
6
3
7
B
0
.
6
1
7
B
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
0
2
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
4
3
B
0
.
0
0
6
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
4
6
8
A
0
.
7
5
5
C
0
.
8
4
9
D
0
.
4
7
1
A
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
6
1
C
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
8
5
4
D
0
.
0
0
5
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
4
7
A
0
.
6
7
5
B
0
.
7
1
4
C
0
.
5
6
4
A
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
7
1
8
C
0
.
0
4
3
0
.
7
4
9
C
0
.
0
3
5
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0
.
7
5
8
C
0
.
6
9
7
B
0
.
6
2
5
B
0
.
7
6
0
C
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
7
0
4
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
2
9
B
0
.
0
0
4
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
3
B
1
0
.
7
B
1
0
.
2
B
1
2
.
3
B
-
1
0
.
7
B
-
1
0
.
3
B
-
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
0
B
8
.
8
A
8
.
8
A
1
2
.
1
B
-
8
.
8
A
-
8
.
8
A
-
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
1
2
.
4
B
9
.
5
A
9
.
1
A
1
2
.
5
B
-
9
.
5
A
-
9
.
2
A
-
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
12
.
5
B
9
.
3
A
8
.
8
A
1
2
.
5
B
-
9
.
3
A
-
8
.
8
A
-
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8.
0
A
8
.
0
A
7
.
8
A
8
.
0
A
-
8
.
0
A
-
7
.
9
A
-
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9
.
3
A
9
.
1
A
9
.
2
A
9
.
4
A
-
9
.
3
A
-
9
.
4
A
-
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
6
A
1
1
.
5
B
1
5
.
1
C
8
.
9
A
-
1
3
.
4
B
-
1
8
.
0
C
-
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7
.
4
A
1
0
.
8
B
1
5
.
8
C
7
.
4
A
-
1
0
.
8
B
-
1
5
.
8
C
-
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
∆
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
.
-
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
n
a
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
s
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
O
S
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sat
PM
AMEx
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ta
b
l
e
I
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
AM
P
M
S
a
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
I
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
5
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
9
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
1
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
5
A
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
6
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
2
4
.
4
-
C
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
7
.
5
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
9
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
2
9
.
5
-
B
3
0
.
9
-
A
3
1
.1 -A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
28
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
2
6
.
9
-
A
2
6
.
2
-
A
27.2-A
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
30
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
nd
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
J
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
W
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
ro
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
M
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
J
428 / 490 538 / 539 0 / 6 15 / 91
47 / 42 81 / 13 606 / 533 7 / 30 3 / 39
545 / 318 307 / 174 496 / 391 60 / 191 14 / 126
93 / 171 7 / 65 104 / 108 5 / 83
17 / 48 5 / 57 3 / 1 2 / 38
6 / 12 11 / 89 577 / 355 21 / 207
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av 4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
40 / 11 22 / 15 2 / 11 44 / 82
7 / 2 25 / 9 370 / 423 0 / 8 40 / 45
12 / 10 52 / 56 43 / 44 1 / 0 13 / 29
90 / 190 279 / 163 603 / 433 59 / 22 94 / 35
2 / 1 13 / 10 0 / 4 6 / 4 74 / 42
87 / 125 104 / 63 130 / 55 80 / 47
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd 8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr 9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
147 / 76 39 / 82
29 / 22 97 / 147 100 / 166 53 / 94 52 / 248
161 / 152 4 / 21 7 / 21 52 / 149 28 / 77
10 / 3 123 / 92 128 / 102 35 / 27
29 / 15 12 / 17 105 / 82
1 / 3 15 / 21
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd 12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 15
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
11
2
1
/
9
2
1
89
/
1
5
4
12
9
/
3
5
6
43
8
/
4
6
6
12
/
1
7
82
4
/
1
0
3
5
4
/
1
4
15
/
1
1
0
24
5
/
3
8
9
10
9
/
4
4
98
6
/
1
2
7
4
15
/
8
7
15
2
7
/
1
4
0
3
36
6
/
3
5
1
14
7
4
/
1
4
8
3
56
/
1
5
5
23
/
1
5
6
83
/
3
8
21
5
/
1
7
7
32
/
4
9
32
/
2
8
7
9
/
4
2
11
/
3
8
34
/
1
6
8
12
/
4
7
11
/
6
4
4
/
5
2
23
/
3
4
14
/
3
7
63
/
6
6
1
/
3
12
/
1
9
2
/
7
13
7
/
9
6
22
6
/
1
0
4
5
/
1
1
2
/
2
5
5
/
2
13
8
/
1
1
4
92
/
3
9
19
3
/
1
4
2
23
/
3
8
81
/
4
5
53
/
4
1
10
9
/
4
5
17
1
/
1
6
5
0
/
2
4
/
1
0
22
/
4
8
14
0
6
/
1
5
2
7
17
2
/
1
7
7
20
/
7
0
29
0
/
2
0
3
14
4
6
/
1
5
1
7
4
/
2
7
14
2
/
1
2
2
13
3
9
/
1
6
6
1
15
/
2
3
3
/
5
81
/
1
3
7
64
/
1
6
6
13
5
9
/
1
5
4
8
26
/
3
5
13
2
4
/
1
3
0
9
19
/
9
2
45
5
/
3
3
8
13
2
5
/
1
2
7
3
29
4
/
2
1
1
40
/
8
1
12
5
3
/
1
5
5
0
15
2
2
/
1
4
2
9
37
1
/
6
4
6
12
8
9
/
1
4
5
4
20
8
/
3
6
4
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-15 OY NP AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
503 570 9 99
25 5 474 23 85
466 303 293 186 183
165 7 105 125
37 12 1 76
17 8 335 211
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
19 6 7 85
3 8 399 7 32
11 59 38 3 28
216 137 387 25 25
12 4 3 6 40
193 82 42 26
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
47 90
18 116 124 87 418
104 12 40 233 104
3 101 108 21
12 23 2 89
6 36
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 16
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
90
3
13
3
24
7
40
1
21
92
2
16 16
0
33
224
12
6
8
13
6
11
4
9
32
2
15
4
1
16
8
28
1
20 15
0
57
32
4
53
61
21
9 62 8541
26 46 98
4 395
10
8
10
1 1029
3 88 46
14
2 37572655
18
1
2
937
14
1
8
10
6
62
19
7
13
2
9
46 82
14
9
3
13
4
18
1
21
1
13
6
3
34
10
5
3
10
6
28
0
12
0
8
23
3
63 13
4
2
14
3
6
43
0
15
5
1
29
0
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-16 OY NP Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 35
Traffic from the proposed project was then added to assess any near-term deficiencies. Project
Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions weekday a.m., p.m., and
weekend mid-day peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figures 17 and 18, respectively.
A summary of Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy LOS for study area intersections
and roadway segments is presented in Tables K and L, respectively. LOS for study area intersections
and roadway segments associated with the addition of the proposed project are presented in Tables M
and N, respectively. As shown on the tables, all study area intersections and roadway segments are
anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Project Completion Year (2016)
with Full Occupancy conditions, without and with the proposed project.
The LOS worksheets for Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy without and with
Project conditions are included in Appendices F and G, respectively.
FUTURE (2035) GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
Traffic conditions for the future long-range condition, corresponding to the buildout of the City’s
General Plan, were analyzed in the study. The traffic volumes for Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout traffic conditions were developed based on an annual growth rate applied to the Existing
(2014) weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend peak-hour traffic volumes at study intersections and
roadway segments to represent a 21-year horizon. To develop the Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout baseline volumes, LSA estimated the annual growth rate of 0.2 percent per year based on the
growth along Seal Beach Boulevard using the OCTAM traffic model. However, based on discussions
with City staff, a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year was applied over the next 21 years to provide a
conservative traffic analysis.
To account for the fully occupied retail center, the trip assignment generated earlier for the
unoccupied portion was manually added to the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout traffic volumes
to develop the volumes for the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy condition.
The LOS at the study area intersections and roadway segments were identified based on this data.
Figures 19 and 20 show the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy peak hour
volumes at the study area intersections for weekday and weekend conditions, respectively.
Intersection turning movement volumes resulting from the addition of the proposed project are shown
on Figures 21 and 22 for weekday and weekend conditions, respectively.
A summary of Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy LOS for study area
intersections and roadway segments is presented in Tables O and P, respectively. The LOS for study
area intersections and roadway segments associated with the inclusion of the proposed project are
presented in Tables Q and R, respectively.
432 / 500 542 / 550 0 / 6 15 / 91
47 / 42 81 / 13 609 / 542 7 / 30 3 / 39
545 / 318 307 / 174 496 / 391 60 / 191 14 / 126
93 / 171 7 / 65 104 / 108 5 / 83
17 / 48 5 / 57 3 / 1 2 / 38
6 / 12 11 / 89 578 / 358 21 / 207
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
40 / 11 22 / 15 2 / 11 45 / 84
7 / 2 25 / 9 371 / 427 1 / 9 41 / 47
12 / 10 52 / 56 43 / 44 1 / 1 14 / 31
101 / 215 279 / 163 604 / 436 59 / 22 94 / 35
2 / 1 13 / 10 0 / 4 7 / 6 75 / 44
98 / 150 104 / 63 130 / 55 80 / 47
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
147 / 76 39 / 82
29 / 22 97 / 147 100 / 166 76 / 159 52 / 248
161 / 152 4 / 21 30 / 86 52 / 149 28 / 77
10 / 3 123 / 92 128 / 102 35 / 27
29 / 15 15 / 24 128 / 132
1 / 3 15 / 21
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 17
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
11
2
3
/
9
2
7
89
/
1
5
4
12
9
/
3
5
6
44
2
/
4
7
4
12
/
1
7
82
6
/
1
0
4
2
4
/
1
4
15
/
1
1
0
24
5
/
3
8
9
10
9
/
4
4
99
2
/
1
2
9
0
15
/
8
7
15
3
9
/
1
4
3
6
36
7
/
3
5
5
14
8
6
/
1
5
1
6
56
/
1
5
5
23
/
1
5
6
83
/
3
8
21
5
/
1
7
7
33
/
5
1
32
/
2
8
7
9
/
4
2
11
/
3
8
34
/
1
6
8
12
/
4
7
11
/
6
4
4
/
5
2
23
/
3
4
14
/
3
7
63
/
6
6
1
/
3
35
/
6
9
2
/
7
13
8
/
9
8
22
6
/
1
0
4
5
/
1
1
5
/
3
1
5
/
2
13
9
/
1
1
6
92
/
3
9
19
3
/
1
4
2
24
/
4
1
81
/
4
5
53
/
4
1
10
9
/
4
5
17
2
/
1
6
8
0
/
3
4
/
1
0
22
/
4
8
14
1
8
/
1
5
5
2
17
2
/
1
7
7
20
/
7
0
29
1
/
2
0
5
14
4
6
/
1
5
1
7
4
/
2
7
14
2
/
1
2
2
13
5
1
/
1
6
9
3
15
/
2
3
3
/
5
92
/
1
7
0
75
/
1
9
8
13
5
9
/
1
5
4
8
26
/
3
5
13
3
6
/
1
3
3
5
19
/
9
2
45
6
/
3
4
0
13
3
1
/
1
2
8
7
29
7
/
2
1
7
40
/
8
1
12
6
5
/
1
5
7
6
15
3
2
/
1
4
5
0
37
4
/
6
5
2
12
9
9
/
1
4
8
2
20
8
/
3
6
4
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-17 OY WP AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
509 577 9 99
25 5 479 23 85
466 303 293 186 183
165 7 105 125
37 12 1 76
17 8 338 211
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
19 6 7 87
3 8 401 8 34
11 59 38 4 30
241 137 390 25 25
12 4 3 7 42
218 82 42 26
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
47 90
18 116 124 128 418
104 12 81 233 104
3 101 108 21
12 28 2 139
6 36
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 18
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Project Completion Year (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
90
8
13
3
24
7
40
9
21
92
6
16 16
0
33
224
12
7
9
13
6
11
7
0
32
4
15
6
2
16
8
28
1
20 15
0
58
32
4
53
61
21
9 62 8541
26 46 98
4 895
11
0
10
1 1035
3 89 46
14
2 39572655
18
3
2
937
14
4
2
10
6
62
19
9
13
2
9
46 82
15
1
3
13
4
20
2
23
1
13
6
3
34
10
7
8
10
6
28
2
12
2
2
23
8
63 13
6
7
14
5
7
43
7
15
6
9
29
0
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-18 OY WP Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
1
Sea
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
39
.
0
D
4
1
.
4
D
4
0
.
8
D
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
36
.
6
D
3
6
.
1
D
3
5
.
8
D
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0.
7
5
7
C
0
.
7
2
0
C
0
.
6
9
9
B
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0.
6
1
9
B
0
.
7
0
1
C
0
.
6
4
2
B
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0.
4
7
2
A
0
.
7
6
2
C
0
.
8
5
7
D
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
5
2
A
0
.
6
8
0
B
0
.
7
2
0
C
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0.
7
6
4
C
0
.
7
0
3
C
0
.
6
3
0
B
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
12
.
4
B
1
0
.
7
B
1
0
.
3
B
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
12
.
1
B
8.
8
A
8.8A
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
12
.
5
B
9.
5
A
9.1A
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
12
.
6
B
9.
4
A
8.8A
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8.
0
A
8.
0
A
7.9A
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9.
3
A
9.
1
A
9.2A
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8.
6
A
1
1
.
6
B
1
5
.
4
C
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7.
4
A
1
0
.
9
B
1
6
.
1
C
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(S
ha
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
O
S
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ta
b
l
e
K
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Int
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
K
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
4
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
4
A
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
5
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
24
.
3
-
D
2
6
.
5
-
C
2
7
.
5
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
26
.
4
-
C
2
9
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
29
.
5
-
B
3
0
.
9
-
A
3
1
.
1
-
A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
28
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
3
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
27
.
4
-
A
2
7
.
3
-
A
2
7
.
9
-
A
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
L
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Se
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
PM
Saturday Mid-day
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
0
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
L
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
∆
IC
U
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
ICUICU / DelayLOS∆ ICU
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
39
.
0
D
4
1
.
4
D
4
0
.
8
D
3
9
.
1
D
-
4
1
.
6
D
-
4
0
.
9
D
-
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
36
.
6
D
3
6
.
1
D
3
5
.
8
D
3
6
.
8
D
-
3
6
.
4
D
-
3
6
.
0
D
-
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
5
7
C
0
.
7
2
0
C
0
.
6
99
B
0
.
7
6
1
C
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
7
2
7
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
7
0
6
C
0
.
0
0
7
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
9
B
0
.
7
0
1
C
0.
6
4
2
B
0
.
6
2
2
B
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
0
8
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
4
8
B
0
.
0
0
6
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
4
7
2
A
0
.
7
6
2
C
0.
8
5
7
D
0
.
4
7
5
A
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
6
7
C
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
8
6
2
D
0
.
0
0
5
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
5
2
A
0
.
6
8
0
B
0
.
7
2
0
C
0
.
5
6
9
A
0
.
0
1
7
0
.
7
2
4
C
0
.
0
4
4
0
.
7
5
5
C
0
.
0
3
5
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0
.
7
6
4
C
0
.
7
0
3
C
0
.
6
3
0
B
0
.
7
6
7
C
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
1
0
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
3
4
B
0
.
0
0
4
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
4
B
1
0
.
7
B
1
0
.
3
B
1
2
.
4
B
-
1
0
.
7
B
-
1
0
.
3
B
-
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
2
.
1
B
8
.
8
A
8
.
8
A
1
2
.
1
B
-
8
.
9
A
-
8
.
8
A
-
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
1
2
.
5
B
9
.
5
A
9
.
1
A
1
2.
6
B
-
9
.
6
A
-
9
.
2
A
-
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
1
2
.
6
B
9
.
4
A
8
.
8
A
1
2
.
6
B
-
9
.4
A
-
8
.
8
A
-
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
0
A
8
.
0
A
7
.
9
A
8
.
0
A
-
8
.
1
A
-
7
.
9
A
-
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9
.
3
A
9
.
1
A
9
.
2
A
9.
4
A
-
9
.
3
A
-
9
.
4
A
-
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
6
A
1
1
.
6
B
1
5
.4
C
8
.
9
A
-
1
3
.
6
B
-
1
8
.
5
C
-
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7
.
4
A
1
0
.
9
B
1
6
.
1
C
7
.
4
A
-
1
0
.
9
B
-
1
6
.
1
C
-
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
se
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
∆-
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
n
a
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
t
il
i
z
e
s
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
OS
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
ts
PM
AM
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
.
Ta
b
l
e
M
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
20
1
6
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
AM
P
M
S
a
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
20
1
6
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Sat
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
M
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
5
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
6
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
0
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
2
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
6
A
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
7
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
6
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
24
.
3
-
D
2
6
.
4
-
C
2
7
.
4
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
26
.
4
-
C
2
9
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
29
.
5
-
B
3
0
.
9
-
A
3
1
.
0
-
A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
28
.
6
-
B
3
0
.
4
-
B
3
1
.
0
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
26
.
9
-
A
2
6
.
3
-
A
2
7
.
2
-
A
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
0
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
N
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
1
6
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Se
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
PM
Saturday Mid-day
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
N
469 / 536 589 / 590 0 / 7 17 / 99
52 / 46 88 / 14 663 / 583 8 / 33 3 / 43
597 / 348 336 / 190 543 / 428 65 / 209 15 / 138
102 / 187 8 / 71 114 / 118 6 / 91
19 / 53 6 / 62 3 / 1 2 / 42
7 / 13 12 / 97 631 / 388 23 / 227
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
44 / 12 24 / 17 2 / 12 49 / 90
8 / 2 28 / 10 404 / 463 0 / 9 44 / 50
13 / 11 56 / 61 48 / 49 1 / 0 14 / 32
98 / 208 305 / 178 660 / 474 64 / 24 103 / 39
2 / 1 14 / 11 0 / 4 7 / 4 81 / 46
95 / 137 114 / 69 143 / 60 87 / 52
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
161 / 83 43 / 90
32 / 24 106 / 161 109 / 181 57 / 103 56 / 272
176 / 166 4 / 23 8 / 23 56 / 164 31 / 84
11 / 3 135 / 101 140 / 112 39 / 30
32 / 17 13 / 19 115 / 90
1 / 3 17 / 23
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 19
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
13
7
1
/
1
6
9
6
16
6
5
/
1
5
6
3
40
6
/
7
0
7
14
1
0
/
1
5
9
1
22
8
/
3
9
8
88
/
1
5
0
70
/
1
8
1
14
8
7
/
1
6
9
4
29
/
3
9
14
4
9
/
1
4
3
2
21
/
1
0
1
49
7
/
3
7
0
14
5
0
/
1
3
9
2
32
2
/
2
3
1
44
/
8
8
15
3
8
/
1
6
7
1
18
8
/
1
9
3
22
/
7
6
31
7
/
2
2
2
15
8
2
/
1
6
6
0
4
/
3
0
15
6
/
1
3
4
14
6
5
/
1
8
1
8
17
/
2
5
3
/
6
0
/
2
4
/
1
1
24
/
5
3
6
/
2
15
1
/
1
2
5
10
1
/
4
3
21
1
/
1
5
6
25
/
4
2
88
/
5
0
57
/
4
5
11
9
/
5
0
18
7
/
1
8
0
2
/
8
15
0
/
1
0
5
24
8
/
1
1
4
6
/
1
2
2
/
2
8
4
/
5
6
25
/
3
8
15
/
4
1
69
/
7
2
1
/
3
13
/
2
1
35
/
3
1
4
10
/
4
6
12
/
4
2
38
/
1
8
3
13
/
5
2
12
/
7
0
91
/
4
2
23
5
/
1
9
3
35
/
5
4
17
/
9
5
16
7
1
/
1
5
3
5
40
0
/
3
8
5
16
1
2
/
1
6
2
2
61
/
1
6
9
25
/
1
7
0
14
1
/
3
8
9
48
0
/
5
0
9
13
/
1
9
90
2
/
1
1
3
3
4
/
1
5
17
/
1
2
0
26
9
/
4
2
5
11
9
/
4
9
10
7
8
/
1
3
9
3
97
/
1
6
8
12
2
7
/
1
0
0
8
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-19 GP NP AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
550 623 10 108
28 6 518 25 93
509 332 320 203 200
180 8 115 137
41 13 1 83
19 9 367 231
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av 4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
21 7 8 93
3 9 436 8 35
12 64 42 3 31
236 150 423 28 28
13 4 3 7 44
211 90 46 29
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd 8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr 9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
52 98
20 127 136 95 457
114 13 44 255 114
3 111 118 23
13 25 2 97
7 40
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd 12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 20
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
14
6
8
15
7
1
47
1
16
9
7
31
7
19
8
23
1
14
9
1
38
11
5
2
11
6
30
6
13
2
1
25
5
69
15
5
1
11
6
67
21
5
14
5
4
51 90
16
3
3
14
4 2
1041
3 96 51
15
6 41622960
19
8
6
11
8
11
1 1132 45
29 51 10
7
4 43
35
5
57
66
24
0 67 93
22 16
5
62
14
9
12
5
7
35
2
16
8
6
18
3
30
7
27
1
43
9
23
10
0
9
18 17
5
36
427
13
8
7
14
6
98
8
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-20 GP NP Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
473 / 546 593 / 601 0 / 7 17 / 99
52 / 46 88 / 14 666 / 592 8 / 33 3 / 43
597 / 348 336 / 190 543 / 428 65 / 209 15 / 138
102 / 187 8 / 71 114 / 118 6 / 91
19 / 53 6 / 62 3 / 1 2 / 42
7 / 13 12 / 97 632 / 391 23 / 227
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
44 / 12 24 / 17 2 / 12 50 / 92
8 / 2 28 / 10 405 / 467 1 / 10 45 / 52
13 / 11 56 / 61 48 / 49 1 / 1 15 / 34
109 / 233 305 / 178 661 / 477 64 / 24 103 / 39
2 / 1 14 / 11 0 / 4 8 / 6 82 / 48
106 / 162 114 / 69 143 / 60 87 / 52
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
161 / 83 43 / 90
32 / 24 106 / 161 109 / 181 80 / 168 56 / 272
176 / 166 4 / 23 31 / 88 56 / 164 31 / 84
11 / 3 135 / 101 140 / 112 39 / 30
32 / 17 16 / 26 138 / 140
1 / 3 17 / 23
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 21
Legend
123 / 456 AM / PM Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (AM/PM)
12
2
9
/
1
0
1
4
97
/
1
6
8
14
1
/
3
8
9
48
4
/
5
1
7
13
/
1
9
90
4
/
1
1
4
0
4
/
1
5
17
/
1
2
0
26
9
/
4
2
5
11
9
/
4
9
10
8
4
/
1
4
0
9
17
/
9
5
16
8
3
/
1
5
6
8
40
1
/
3
8
9
16
2
4
/
1
6
5
5
61
/
1
6
9
25
/
1
7
0
91
/
4
2
23
5
/
1
9
3
36
/
5
6
35
/
3
1
4
10
/
4
6
12
/
4
2
38
/
1
8
3
13
/
5
2
12
/
7
0
4
/
5
6
25
/
3
8
15
/
4
1
69
/
7
2
1
/
3
36
/
7
1
2
/
8
15
1
/
1
0
7
24
8
/
1
1
4
6
/
1
2
5
/
3
4
6
/
2
15
2
/
1
2
7
10
1
/
4
3
21
1
/
1
5
6
26
/
4
5
88
/
5
0
57
/
4
5
11
9
/
5
0
18
8
/
1
8
3
0
/
3
4
/
1
1
24
/
5
3
15
5
0
/
1
6
9
6
18
8
/
1
9
3
22
/
7
6
31
8
/
2
2
4
15
8
2
/
1
6
6
0
4
/
3
0
15
6
/
1
3
4
14
7
7
/
1
8
5
0
17
/
2
5
3
/
6
99
/
1
8
3
81
/
2
1
3
14
8
7
/
1
6
9
4
29
/
3
9
14
6
1
/
1
4
5
8
21
/
1
0
1
49
8
/
3
7
2
14
5
6
/
1
4
0
6
32
5
/
2
3
7
44
/
8
8
13
8
3
/
1
7
2
2
16
7
5
/
1
5
8
4
40
9
/
7
1
3
14
2
0
/
1
6
1
9
22
8
/
3
9
8
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-21 GP WP AM PM.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
556 630 10 108
28 6 523 25 93
509 332 320 203 200
180 8 115 137
41 13 1 83
19 9 370 231
1Seal Beach Blvd/I-405 SB Ramps2Seal Beach Blvd/I-405NB Ramps3Seal Beach Blvd/Lampson Av4Seal Beach Blvd/Saint Cloud Dr5Seal Beach Blvd/Town Center Dr
21 7 8 95
3 9 438 9 37
12 64 42 4 33
261 150 426 28 28
13 4 3 8 46
236 90 46 29
6Seal Beach Blvd/Rossmoor Center Wy7Seal Beach Blvd/Bradbury Rd8Yellowtail Dr/Saint Cloud Dr9Montecito Rd/Copa De Oro Dr10Montecito Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy
52 98
20 127 136 136 457
114 13 85 255 114
3 111 118 23
13 30 2 147
7 40
11Montecito Rd/Bradbury Rd12West Rd/Rossmoor Center Wy13Project Dwy/Rossmoor Center Wy14Internal Drwy/Rossmoor Center Wy15Internal Dwy/Town Center Dr
FIGURE 22
Legend
123 Saturday Volume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project Peak Hour Volumes (Saturday)
99
3
14
6
27
1
44
7
23
10
1
3
18 17
5
36
427
13
9
8
14
9
12
7
8
35
4
17
0
7
18
3
30
7
22 16
5
63
35
5
57
66
24
0 67 9345
29 51 10
7
4 936
12
0
11
1 1138
3 97 51
15
6 43622960
20
0
2
1041
15
7
5
11
6
67
21
7
14
5
4
51 90
16
5
3
14
4
21
9
25
1
14
9
1
38
11
7
7
11
6
30
8
13
3
5
26
0
69 14
9
3
15
9
2
47
8
17
1
5
31
7
P:\MPA1401\Figures\Fig-22 GP WP Sat.xls\Figure (9/30/2015)
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
I
C
U
/
D
e
l
a
y
L
O
S
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
40
.
1
D
4
2
.
8
D
4
2
.
5
D
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
38
.
4
D
3
6
.
9
D
3
6
.
7
D
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
6
6
C
0
.
7
6
7
C
0
.
7
3
8
C
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
6
B
0
.
7
4
4
C
0
.
6
7
7
B
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0.
4
9
0
A
0
.
7
8
4
C
0
.
8
9
0
D
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
7
4
A
0
.
7
2
3
C
0
.
7
4
5
C
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0.
7
7
4
C
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
6
5
4
B
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
11
.
6
B
1
0
.
9
B
1
0
.
4
B
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
10
.
4
B
8.
8
A
8.9A
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
11
.
2
B
9.
7
A
9.2A
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
11
.
2
B
9.
4
A
8.9A
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
7.
7
A
8.
0
A
7.8A
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9.
1
A
9.
1
A
9.2A
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8.
4
A
1
1
.
9
B
1
6
.
9
C
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7.
3
A
1
1
.
4
B
1
6
.
6
C
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
O
S
D
)
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
Ta
b
l
e
O
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
(
2
0
3
5
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
O
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
8
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
4
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
1
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
A
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
4
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
2
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
A
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
6
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
9
A
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
5
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
1
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
25
.
7
-
C
2
6
.
4
-
C
2
7
.
3
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
28
.
1
-
B
2
9
.
8
-
B
3
0
.
2
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
30
.
3
-
B
3
0
.
7
-
A
3
1
.
1
-
A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
29
.
5
-
B
3
0
.
3
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
28
.
0
-
A
2
7
.
5
-
A
2
7
.
9
-
A
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
P
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
(
2
0
3
5
)
B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Se
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
PM
Saturday Mid-day
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
0
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
P
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
∆
IC
U
IC
U
/
De
l
a
y
LO
S
ICUICU / DelayLOS∆ ICU
1
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
S
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
40
.
1
D
4
2
.
8
D
4
2
.
5
D
4
0
.
2
D
-
4
3
.
1
D
-
4
2
.
7
D
-
2
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
I
-
4
0
5
N
B
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
1
38
.
4
D
3
6
.
9
D
3
6
.
7
D
3
8
.
5
D
-
3
7
.
2
D
-
3
7
.
0
D
-
3
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
0
.
7
6
6
C
0
.
7
6
7
C
0
.
7
38
C
0
.
7
7
0
C
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
7
7
4
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
7
4
4
C
0
.
0
0
6
4
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
6
1
6
B
0
.
7
4
4
C
0.
6
7
7
B
0
.
6
1
9
B
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
8
3
B
0
.
0
0
6
5
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
0
.
4
9
0
A
0
.
7
8
4
C
0.
8
9
0
D
0
.
4
9
3
A
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
7
8
9
C
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
8
9
5
D
0
.
0
0
5
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
0
.
5
7
4
A
0
.
7
2
3
C
0
.
7
4
5
C
0
.
5
9
0
A
0
.
0
1
6
0
.
7
6
6
C
0
.
0
4
3
0
.
7
7
8
C
0
.
0
3
3
7
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
0
.
7
7
4
C
0
.
7
5
1
C
0
.
6
5
4
B
0
.
7
7
6
C
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
7
5
8
C
0
.
0
0
7
0
.
6
5
8
B
0
.
0
0
4
8
Y
e
l
l
o
w
T
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
/
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
1
.
6
B
1
0
.
9
B
1
0
.
4
B
1
1
.
7
B
-
1
0
.
9
B
-
1
0
.
4
B
-
9
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
*
1
0
.
4
B
8
.
8
A
8
.
9
A
1
0
.
5
B
-
8
.
9
A
-
8
.
9
A
-
10
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
1
1
.
2
B
9
.
7
A
9
.
2
A
1
1.
2
B
-
9
.
8
A
-
9
.
3
A
-
11
M
o
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
*
1
1
.
2
B
9
.
4
A
8
.
9
A
1
1
.
2
B
-
9
.5
A
-
8
.
9
A
-
12
W
e
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
7
.
7
A
8
.
0
A
7
.
8
A
7
.
7
A
-
8
.
0
A
-
7
.
8
A
-
13
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
9
.
1
A
9
.
1
A
9
.
2
A
9.
2
A
-
9
.
3
A
-
9
.
4
A
-
14
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
*
8
.
4
A
1
1
.
9
B
1
6
.9
C
8
.
6
A
-
1
3
.
9
B
-
2
0
.
7
C
-
15
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
*
7
.
3
A
1
1
.
4
B
1
6
.
6
C
7
.
3
A
-
1
1
.
4
B
-
1
6
.
6
C
-
IC
U
V
/
C
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
.
*
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
C
M
d
e
l
a
y
i
n
se
c
o
n
d
s
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
∆-
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
n
a
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
u
t
il
i
z
e
s
H
C
M
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
L
OS
D
)
(B
o
r
d
e
r
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
C
i
t
y
"
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
"
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
1
HC
M
M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
-
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
ts
PM
S
a
t
In
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
I
C
U
.
Ta
b
l
e
Q
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
(
2
0
3
5
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
w
i
t
h
Fu
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
20
3
5
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
AM
P
M
S
a
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
20
3
5
+
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
AM
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
Q
.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
De
n
s
i
t
y
L
O
S
Speed (mph)DensityLOS
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
0
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
4
.
0
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
3
B
4
5
.
0
1
6
.
6
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
7
.
2
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
3
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
8
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
5
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
6
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
3
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
1
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
8
A
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
6
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
7
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
1
.
0
A
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
0
B
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
9
B
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
6
B
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
4
5
.
0
1
2
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
5
.
4
B
4
5
.
0
1
3
.
2
B
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Y
e
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
25
.
6
-
C
2
6
.
4
-
C
2
7
.
3
-
C
Ye
l
l
o
w
t
a
i
l
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
C
o
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
28
.
0
-
B
2
9
.
7
-
B
3
0
.
2
-
B
Co
p
a
D
e
O
r
o
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
30
.
2
-
B
3
0
.
6
-
A
3
1
.
0
-
A
Ma
i
n
w
a
y
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
29
.
5
-
B
3
0
.
2
-
B
3
1
.
1
-
A
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
27
.
7
-
A
2
6
.
6
-
A
2
7
.
1
-
A
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
*
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
*
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
**
*An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
5
M
P
H
**
An
a
l
y
z
e
d
a
s
T
w
o
L
a
n
e
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
w
i
t
h
a
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
o
f
3
0
M
P
H
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
I
-
4
0
5
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
/
O
f
f
R
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
L
a
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
p
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
S
a
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
Sa
i
n
t
C
l
o
u
d
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
T
o
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
To
w
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Ro
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
a
n
d
B
r
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
Br
a
d
b
u
r
y
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
R
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
(
2
0
3
5
)
B
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Se
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
AM
PM
Saturday Mid-day
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
R
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 50
As shown on the tables, all study area intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate
at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Future (2035) General Plan Buildout with Full
Occupancy without and with Project conditions. The LOS worksheets for Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout with Full Occupancy without and with Project conditions are included in Appendices H and
I, respectively.
As shown on Table Q, the addition of project traffic at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and
Rossmoor Center Way results in an ICU increase that exceeds the City’s threshold of significance by
0.004 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. It should be noted this intersection is anticipated to operate
at an acceptable LOS C or better under all peak hours in the Future (2035) General Plan Buildout
with Full Occupancy with Project conditions. As all study area intersections and roadway facilities
are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS from Existing (2014) to Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project traffic conditions, operational improvements aimed at
alleviating LOS deficiencies are not warranted and have not been recommended.
It is recommended that the project mitigate its significant contribution of traffic at the intersection of
Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way through a fair share contribution towards
improvements to alleviate existing queuing deficiencies as described in the following section.
ON-SITE CIRCULATION
This section presents the results of the site access assessment conducted for Existing (2014) and
Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions. As presented previously in this report,
both project driveways and site adjacent intersections are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS
for all analysis scenarios.
As part of the site access assessment, existing and potential turn-pocket queuing issues at site access
points and site adjacent intersections were analyzed using the SimTraffic (Version 8.0) software.
SimTraffic is an analysis software that provides a microscopic model that more accurately simulates
real world conditions as compared to macroscopic analysis tools such as Traffix. SimTraffic tracks
and collects measures of effectiveness for each vehicle in a traffic system during a simulation. Due to
variability that arises from simulations of this nature, multiple simulation runs for each analysis
scenario have been averaged in order to draw representative queuing results. This method more
accurately measures the full impact of queuing and blocking of traffic.
Queuing results for Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy without and with Project traffic conditions
are shown on Table S. As shown on Table S, all existing peak-hour queues at site access points and
site-adjacent intersections are anticipated to be sufficiently stored by existing facilities with the
exception of the northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and
Rossmoor Center Way. The existing weekday a.m., p.m., and weekend mid-day 95th percentile peak-
hour queues extend past the storage provided by the existing northbound left-turn pocket. The
northbound left-turn pocket currently provides 80 feet (ft) of storage with a 100 ft transition.
However, as shown on Table S, a potential queue of 168 ft resulting from 179 existing northbound
left-turning vehicles (without the project) during the weekend (Saturday) mid-day peak hour could
spill back into the adjacent through lane.
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NB
L
80
9
8
1
5
3
1
6
8
99
1
8
2
1
7
6
EB
L
23
0
8
7
1
5
2
1
5
7
84
1
6
3
1
7
9
EB
T
R
2
3
0
6
7
70
1
0
5
57
73110
NB
T
R
1
7
5
5
3
52
52
46
5047
SB
L
T
2
2
0
5
0
50
45
53
4847
WB
L
T
R
3
1
0
5
2
55
56
52
6451
NB
L
R
-
2
9
48
51
34
5247
EB
T
R
3
1
0
4
9
47
44
46
4246
WB
L
T
2
5
0
5
2
55
49
54
5650
NB
L
R
-
2
9
38
50
43
5157
WB
L
T
1
9
0
1
0
21
24
24
3131
EB
L
T
1
9
0
5
2
49
49
51
5154
EB
T
R
1
9
0
4
9
50
53
45
5654
WB
L
T
R
2
3
0
6
9
1
0
9
1
4
7
71
1
2
3
1
7
6
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
14
Pro
j
e
c
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
13
We
s
t
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
1210
Se
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
Wa
y
6
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
Mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
Mo
n
t
e
c
i
t
o
R
o
a
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
W
a
y
Ta
b
l
e
S
:
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
AM
P
M
S
a
t
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
9
5
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
Q
u
e
u
e
(
f
t
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
Q
u
e
u
e
(
f
t
)
AM
P
M
S
a
t
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
S
.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 52
The addition of traffic associated with the project to this movement is anticipated to result in a 95th
percentile queue of 182 ft resulting from 169 northbound left-turning vehicles during the weekday
p.m. peak hour. It should be noted that anticipated queue lengths are not directly correlated to their
associated volumes as queuing for a given movement is also dependent on traffic signal operations.
This existing queuing issue is anticipated to continue into future analysis scenarios. All other Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project peak-hour queues at site access points and site-adjacent
intersections are anticipated to be sufficiently stored by existing facilities. SimTraffic queuing
worksheets for both Existing (2014) and Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions
are provided in Appendix J.
The existing northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor
Center Way is bound by the landscaped median along Seal Beach Boulevard and a southbound left-
turn pocket that provides access to the Target shopping center to the southeast of this intersection. As
such, any physical improvements to this northbound left-turn pocket would require some vacation of
the landscaped median and could not extend past the existing southbound left-turn pocket to the
south.
Operational and physical improvements required to provide adequate turn-pocket storage are
discussed in the Recommended Improvements section of this report.
PARKING
This parking study reviews parking supply and demand for the proposed health club within the Shops
at Rossmoor. The proposed project will generate future parking demand in excess of existing parking
demand while reducing the existing parking supply. 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 analysis investigates
whether the reduced parking supply can adequately meet future parking demand or whether increased
enforcement of parking policy will be necessary to ensure adequate parking supply for retail and
health club patrons.
Existing Conditions
The proposed health club will be built in an existing parking lot within the Shops at Rossmoor. The
affected parking lots are shown on Figure 23 and divided into two zones. The number and type of
parking spaces in each zone are also displayed on Figure 23.
Parking accumulation counts were conducted by NDS at the shopping center on a typical weekday,
Thursday, November 13, 2014, and again on a typical weekend, Saturday, November 15, 2014. As
shown on Tables T and U, and Figure 23, adequate parking is provided in Parking Zones 1 and 2 to
accommodate the existing peak weekday and weekend parking demand.
FIGURE 23
Existing Parking ZonesSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
100500
N
I:\MPA1401\G\Existing Parking Zones.cdr (10/1/15)
Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
ROSSMOOR CENTER WAYROSSMOOR CENTER WAY
Total Existing Parking Supply -445
Peak Weekday Demand - 106
Peak Weekend Demand - 153
LEGEND
YYY
ZZZ
XXX -Parking Supply
-Weekday Demand
-Weekend Demand
Zone 1Zone 1
Zone 2Zone 215
17
96
139
116
329
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 54
Table T: Weekday Parking Utilization Summary
Parking
Supply
Parking Demand Remaining
Spaces Peak Time
Zone 1 116 15 7:00 p.m. 101
Zone 2 329 96 1:00 p.m. 233
Total 445 106 1:00 p.m. 339
Table U: Weekend Parking Utilization Summary
Parking
Supply
Parking Demand Remaining
Spaces Peak Time
Zone 1 116 17 10:00 a.m. 99
Zone 2 329 139 2:00 p.m. 190
Total 445 153 2:00 p.m. 292
Observed parking demand counts in each of the parking zones for weekday and weekend are provided
in Appendix K.
Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section 11.4.20 establishes required parking for all
developments within the City. SBMC Table 11.4.20.015.A.1 states that gyms and fitness studios
greater than 20,000 sf must provide 1 parking space per 300 sf of development. Per the SBMC, 124
parking stalls are required to serve the proposed 37,000 sf health club. In addition, development of the
project would result in a loss of 40 parking spaces from Parking Zones 1 and 2, bringing the total
parking supply of Zones 1 and 2 from 445 to 405 stalls.
Demand for these spaces would vary throughout the day. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) has
collected data on the variation in parking demand for health clubs by time of day and has published
that data in Shared Parking (Second Edition). Table V displays the anticipated variation in weekday
parking demand generated by the proposed project and adds that to the observed existing parking
demand to determine the anticipated total future parking demand. This total is compared to the future
parking supply of 405 spaces to determine the number of spaces remaining. Table W repeats this
process for weekend parking demand. Figure 24 illustrates the future parking supply and peak parking
demand by zone.
Seventeen of the stalls in Zone 2 are reserved for the Farmers and Merchants Bank building, per the
Fifth Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Grant of Easements
(Effective March 31, 2014). Tables V and W have included these 17 reserved parking stalls as part of
the future parking demand. As shown on Tables V and W, sufficient parking will be provided in the
weekday and weekend by the combination of Parking Zones 1 and 2 to accommodate future demand
which includes buildout of the retail center and the proposed project.
40%507417141405264
70%877817182405223
70%878517189405216
80%9910417220405185
60%749917190405215
70%8710617210405195
70%8710417208405197
70%8710017204405201
80%999017206405199
90%1128817217405188
100%1248817229405176
90%1129217221405184
80%999617212405193
70%879817202405203
35%439017150405255
1
2
3
10:00 p.m.
Health Club Time-of-Day Factors for Weekdays, Shared Parking Second Edition, Urban Land Institute
5:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
17 stalls within Zone 2 have been reserved for the Farmers & Merchants bank building in the Shops at Rossmoor per the Fifth Amendment to
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Grant of Easements.
12:00 p.m.
Farmers &
Merchant
Bank3
Table V: Future Weekday Parking Demand
Typical Parking
Demand1 Existing
Demand
Future
Total
Parking
Supply
Remaining
Spaces
LA Fitness
1242
The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) requires 1 space per 300 square feet (sf) of gym and fitness studios greater than 20,000 sf; LA
Fitness is proposed to be 37,000 sf
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
35%439117151405254
50%629917178405227
35%4311017170405235
50%6211917198405207
50%6212217201405204
30%3714217196405209
25%3115317201405204
30%3714817202405203
55%6812517210405195
100%12411917260405145
95%11811817253405152
60%7410717198405207
30%3710517159405246
10%129017119405286
1%19217110405295
1
2
3
10:00 p.m.
Health Club Time-of-Day Factors for Weekends, Shared Parking Second Edition, Urban Land Institute
5:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
17 stalls within Zone 2 have been reserved for the Farmers & Merchants bank building in the Shops at Rossmoor per the Fifth Amendment to
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Grant of Easements.
LA Fitness
1242
12:00 p.m.
Farmers &
Merchant
Bank3
Table W: Future Weekend Parking Demand
Typical Parking
Demand1 Existing
Demand
Future
Total
Parking
Supply
Remaining
Spaces
The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) requires 1 space per 300 square feet (sf) of gym and fitness studios greater than 20,000 sf; LA
Fitness is proposed to be 37,000 sf
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
FIGURE 24
Future Parking Zones
N
I:\MPA1401\G\Future Parking Zones.cdr (10/1/15)
Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
SOURCE: robinson hill architecture, inc.
FEET
90450
LEGEND
YYY
ZZZ
XXX - Parking Supply
-Weekday Demand
-Weekend Demand
Zone 1Zone 1Zone 1
Zone 2Zone 2Zone 2
Total Future Parking Supply - 405
Peak Weekday Demand - 229
Peak Weekend Demand - 260
15
17
215
247
160
245
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 58
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
As presented previously throughout this report, all study area intersections and roadway facilities are
anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS from Existing (2014) to Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout with Full Occupancy plus Project traffic conditions and as such, improvements aimed at
alleviating LOS deficiencies have not been recommended.
Improvements aimed at alleviating existing peak-hour queuing deficiencies at the site-adjacent
intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way are recommended. The northbound
left-turn movement is currently experiencing queues that could extend past the existing left-turn
pocket during periods of peak demand. The provision of dual left-turn lanes is one possible solution
to long queues. However, if an unequal utilization of the left-turn lanes were probable, the
effectiveness of providing two lanes would be greatly diminished. In addition, right-of-way may be
necessary to implement dual left-turn lanes. In these circumstances, extending the queue available to
the single lane may be a better option. As shown on Table S, the northbound left-turn pocket would
require a storage length of approximately 168 ft (an extension of 88 ft) to accommodate Existing
(2014) with Full Occupancy peak-hour queues and a storage length of approximately 182 ft (an
extension of 102 ft) to accommodate Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project peak-hour
queues. As noted previously and illustrated on Figure 25, the existing landscaped median along Seal
Beach Boulevard would require modification and possibly vacation in order to provide the
recommended storage length. As shown on Figure 25, a storage length of 205 ft (an extension of
125 ft) would not disrupt the existing southbound left-turn pocket providing access to the adjacent
Target shopping center, but may create a situation where the two adjacent left-turn pockets would
effectively be “back to back.”
Additionally, traffic signal phasing modifications can be made in order to help alleviate the existing
and anticipated queuing issue. One such modification is to provide both a “lead” and “lag” phase for
the northbound left-turn movement. This would entail providing phasing for this movement during
both the beginning and end of the adjacent northbound through movement, effectively providing two
northbound left-turn phases per cycle. As shown on Table X, this traffic signal modification can help
reduce the peak-hour queues but not enough to eliminate the need to provide additional queuing
storage. It should be noted that this traffic signal modification can be accommodated while
maintaining acceptable intersection LOS per the HCM methodology.
Queuing worksheets reflecting the described traffic signal phasing modification at the intersection of
Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way for Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy without
and with Project conditions are included in Appendix L.
In an effort to determine the extent of the proposed project’s contribution to this existing and future
queuing deficiency, the percentage of northbound left-turning vehicles attributable to the project has
been calculated. The following table, Table Y, details the project’s percentage of northbound left-
turning vehicles under Existing (2014) with Full Occupancy plus Project for each of the three peak
hours.
FIGURE 25
RecommendedTurn Pocket ExtensionSOURCE: Google Earth
FEET
60300
N
I:\MPA1401\G\Turn Pocket Extension.cdr (10/1/15)
Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor
LEGEND
- Recommended Turn Pocket Extension
- ExistingTurn Pocket Storage
- Recommended Turn Pocket Storage
- Recommended Extension
ROSSMOOR CENTER WAYROSSMOOR CENTER WAY
SE
A
L
B
E
A
C
H
B
L
V
D
SE
A
L
B
E
A
C
H
B
L
VD
80
’
80
’
20
5
’
20
5
’
12
5
’
12
5
’
LS
A
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
,
I
N
C
.
NB
L
8
0
20
5
94
1
2
7
1
5
6
9
6
1
4
1
1
6
7
EB
L
2
3
0
2
3
0
8
7
1
6
2
1
6
7
9
7
1
6
9
1
8
3
EB
T
R
2
3
0
2
3
0
6
1
7
1
9
9
6
1
7
6
1
2
5
(S
h
a
d
e
)
=
E
x
c
e
e
d
s
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
Bo
l
d
=
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
6
S
e
a
l
B
e
a
c
h
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
R
o
s
s
m
o
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
Wa
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
Ta
b
l
e
X
:
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
w
i
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
S
u
m
ma
r
y
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
wi
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
Qu
e
u
e
(
f
t
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
4
)
w
i
t
h
F
u
l
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
l
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
9
5
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
Q
u
e
u
e
(
f
t
)
AM
P
M
S
a
t
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
A
M
P
M
S
a
t
M
i
d
-
d
a
y
P:
\
M
P
A
1
4
0
1
\
x
l
s
\
L
O
S
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
+
o
t
h
e
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
.
x
l
s
\
X
.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15» 61
Table Y: Project Fair Share Calculation
Intersection Peak Hour
2014
FO+P NB
Left-Turn
Volume
Project
NB Left-
Turn
Volume
Project
% of NB
Left-Turn
Volume
6 Seal Beach Boulevard/Rossmoor Center Way AM 91 11 12%
PM 169 33 20%
Saturday 200 21 11%
Bold = Highest peak-hour project percentage
NB = northbound
FO+P = Full Occupancy Plus Project
CONCLUSIONS
This traffic/circulation analysis was prepared for a study area along Seal Beach Boulevard north of
the I-405 freeway in order to identify any potential traffic impacts resulting from the development of
the proposed health club within the Shops at Rossmoor. The study included analysis of intersections
and roadway segments along Seal Beach Boulevard and local access roads adjacent to the proposed
project.
The LOS at 15 intersections and 11 roadway segments within the study area for seven scenarios were
analyzed and physical and/or operational improvements were not recommended as all facilities were
found to meet the City’s LOS standards.
A queuing analysis of site-access points and site-adjacent intersections found that all peak-hour
queues are anticipated to be sufficiently stored by existing facilities with the exception of the
northbound left-turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way.
The extension of the existing northbound left-turn pocket from 80 ft to 205 ft has been recommended
in order to alleviate this existing and anticipated queuing deficiency. It is recommended that the
project contribute a fair share percentage of 20% of the total cost of improving this northbound left-
turn pocket.
A parking assessment was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed parking supply in
meeting future parking demand. Based on this assessment, the proposed parking supply exceeds the
anticipated parking demand.
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTOBER 2015
HEALTH CLUB WITHIN T HE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA
P:\MPA1401\TIA\Report rev4.docx «10/01/15»
APPENDIX A
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME COUNTS
Appendix A to this Traffic Study can be requested from the City