HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental InformationPlanning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Regarding: Conditional Use Permit 15 -7, Declaration for 37,000 sq. Health Club, at the Shops at Rossmoor, 12411 Seal Beach BI., Seal Beach, Ca. Sirs: I am a resident in the community of Rossmoor. I am opposing the construction of a 37,000 Sq. Ft., Health Club to be located behind the Sprouts Market. The facility will add an additional amount of traffic that cannot be handled by the adjacent roadways. It is my understanding the Health Club is to boarder Rossmoor Center Way. The additional vehicle traffic traveling on Rossmoor Center Way towards Seal Beach Blvd. would result in grid lock. Rossmoor Center Way has a four way stop Intersection located between the Sprouts Market and Pei Way Restaurant. Current levels of traffic traveling towards Seal Beach Blvd. results in several vehicles being backed up at the four way stops. During peak traffic hours I have seen so many vehicles stopped at the four way Intersection that vehicles are backed up all the way to Seal Beach Blvd., causing grid lock at the Traffic Signal Light located at Seal Beach Blvd., and Rossmoor Center Way. If this facility were to be approved the additional vehicle traffic would be an extreme burden to the normal flow of traffic. If the additional traffic were to travel on Rossmoor Center Way towards Montecito Road, it would be met by another four way stop intersection. This particular intersection is not a square 90 degree intersection, but has Main Way off set to the right of Rossmoor Center Way. This particular configuration confuses most motorist with the current level of traffic. With the added traffic of the Health Club, this intersection would experience a level of grid lock, along with endangering pedestrian's safety in the cross walks. JUN 2 0 iu i I CITY OF SEAL BEACH I If the Health Club facility were to be approved, I urge the commission to mandate Traffic Signal Lights at the described intersections to aid in the lessoning of grid lock. The Traffic Signal Lights located at the Sprouts Market should be synchronized with the Traffic Signal Light located at Rossmoor Center Way and Seal Beach Boulevard. There are two additional exits from Rossmoor Center located on west side of the center. The exit points are burdened by the vehicle traffic from the numerous shops that already exist. It is not uncommon to observe speeding vehicles traveling through the parking lot heading towards these two exits, which also experience traffic backup based on current levels of customers In addition, I do not see how the residents of Rossmoor would financially benefit from this facility. The Rossmoor residents would experience a higher level of traffic congestion, some of which would spill over into the residential streets of Rossmoor. The City of Seal Beach would receive the newly generated monies and the residents of Rossmoor would receive the lessoning of a family neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, 6 Randy Zaitz 11612 Kensington Road Rossmoor, California 90720 r fo '10 i N P i jo c� C Ilj t � [M1errySt t - � Hak,an St Bedpan St p d vme st +a E B g _ Pnxo Bw�M 9 Seel Beach Blvd Seal Beach BIvd 01 Seal Beach Blvd m Seal P,,,dh 0.4p -i Al m m Valk v dl DW, O a z•'IR Fi � j��+ 6 r� r;`•t+ O Bo.ena orQ DrulaN m� i $ 8 ` b :ib nd Mmtechn no Mmrtt:m Rd Abnlmla n0 b S d d VV a w S a d � A Chku raE g 3 b 0 � Swar rm Rd N Q b Oak Leal Dr t Qq DakWM t aCP� !W!�� Banpnlmep � OullanlneIX � L E• O CM1ianU Or M DarmWn -4i Ta h� v CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CA 211 EIGHT ST SEAL BEACH,CA 90740 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AT MARINA CENTER JUNE20, 2016 AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE TO ADDRESS THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT ROSSMOOR CENTER WAY AND MONTICETO RD AS WELL AS ROSSMOOR CENTER WAY AND SEAL BEACH BLVD. AT RUSH HOUR. � . c ROSSMOOR, CA JUN 'r' 0 2016 By:.... .... Thomas Cripps comments: Seal Beach Planning Commission, Item 2 CUP 15- 007�health club within Shops @ Rossmoor June 201h 2016 Commissioners: My comments as past President and now Secretary are being made on behalf of the 256 unit Rossmoor Park Owners Assoc. We have over 600 residents with just 390 car ports, 260 of which exit directly Rossmoor Center Way, which forms the southern border of our property. Commissioners, our com- munity will be the most heavily impacted by the proposed health club traffic but only cursory reference in the comments notification section acknowledges our existence. The materials presented we contend are incomplete. I will be addressing the 'Response to Comments' document. We learnt by chance of its existence and avail- ability during a City Hall visit June 14`h just one week ago. The more than a ream (500 pages) of additional documentation of health club project could be viewed by late Tuesday in one of the three O.C. public librar- ies. This included the illusive Oct 2015 traffic Analysis referenced by Marty Potts, Project Applicant, Neighborhood Meetings in January and March, but never made publicly accessible until last week. We are well aware that PC meeting procedures only require such documentation to be made available 72 hours be- fore a meeting. Further, the City's decision not to continue with the May 181h EQCB decision to delay ap- proval of the health club raised our concerns. The consequent minimum notice of EQCB meetings, review time and access to relevant documentation, including a City $42.00 charge for a copy of the IS /MND'(which excluded the 63 page Oct 2015 Traffic Study Analysis narrative included in the final June 10`h version of the IS /MND) suggests the City is not truly interested in comments presented by community residents impacted by the proposed health club project. We appreciate the commissioners have to abide by the now somewhat archaic procedure of the 1970's conceived CEQA, but request you show some initiative and do not make a decision on the health club project today. This will give the Commissioners and community more reason- able time to review and comment on the health club project documentation, especially since it was only made available with limited notice to the impacted community for the first time only during this past week. Commissioner we have been diligent to ensure our comments are consistent per CEQA Sect 15204 that re- quire comments to'be environmentally specific (Comments, page 3). Since April 22nd through to the end of the comment period May 18`h four carefully crafted mitigation requests have been accepted by the City and were on behalf of Rossmoor Park. They primarily request traffic mitigation for the unique traffic impacts on Rossmoor Center Way, (IS /MND Attach. 2B: 2.2 Comments, page 4). Because of the lack of availability of the Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis, October 2015, by LSA (referenced above) the following mitigation requests had to refer to the Seal Beach Boulevard, October, 1012 Traffic Analysis by LSA. Mitigation Request (Part One. April 21 ") —IS /MND Attach. 2B: Comment 2.2 PDF page 41 1. Residential overflow parking, within the Shops at Rossmoor. This may not be strictly a CEQA envi- ronmental issue. However the City does have responsibility as stated for the approval of such high density residential zoning in 1969 which led to the present Rossmoor Park'inadequate parking'. Page 1 of 6 �ti -1 UN 2 0 2016 L Mitigation requests (Part Two May 2"J_ Attach. 26: Comments 2.2 PDF page 51 2. An additional intersection study on Rossmoor Center Way, (to include exit lane traffic from Ross- moor Park). New intersection13 (2015 Traffic Analysis, Fig 3) update comment is given below with respect to the now available Oct. 2015 Traffic Analysis. 3. Convert Rossmoor Center Way (between Sprouts intersection to Montecito Road) to a way one street. The preferred direction being from Montecito to Sprouts, enabling shopping patron access. 4. Additional Pedestrian crossing on Rossmoor Center Way (Just west of south (260) auto exit from Rossmoor Park). There are three pedestrian gates directly entering onto Rossmoor Center Way from Rossmoor Park. The most westerly Rossmoor Center Way pedestrian gate is serviced by a pedestrian crossing and is adjacent to the west side lane of the health club, (2015 analysis, Intersection 12, Fig 3). New offset intersection 13, (Fig 3) with eastside health club traffic justifies the crossing. Updated Mitigation requests May 1g1h, CUP 15 -007, —IS /MND Attach. 2B: Comments 2.2. PDF page 61 Presents comments now updated on the first page above, these earlier statements lacked the detail that be- came available through the documents made available June 12`h. Master Response — IS /MND Attach. 26: Traffic Impacts -2.2 Thomas Cripps, page 9. The several mitigation issues identified above are said to be addressed in the Master Responses? Nowhere in the master responses to any of the above four mitigation requests, in which the details were carefully devel- oped, is there more than a casual mentioned. In fact the master traffic responses tend to Ignore any Impact or even existence of the Rossmoor Park community Immediately north of Rossmoor Center Way and the proposed health club project. The Master Response- Traffic page 5, end of third paragraph is a good example of the casual ignoring of the existence of Rossmoor Park north of Rossmoor Center Way and related impacts. The master response refer- ences the queuing study and sensitive conditions along Rossmoor Center Way (RCW) and Seal Beach Boule- vard. But in fact only is concerned with the section of RCW between Seal Beach Blvd. and the internal drive- way intersection adjacent to Sprouts and Pei Wei. Update: Oct. 2015 Traffic Analysis intersections 30 ( Montecito Rd. /Rossmoor Center Way) and 13 (Project Driveway /Rossmoor Center Way). The recent June 10`h availability of the 'Health Club within the Shops at Rossmoor Traffic Analysis, Oct 2015' enables a graphic comparison to demonstrate a misrepresentation in the IS /MND document traffic analysis along Rossmoor Center Way. Both of the above traffic study intersections are offset and unique and exclude Rossmoor Park auto entrance (intersection 10) and Exit (intersection 13). Thus the consequent intersection traffic flows and analysis are misrepresented. The fact that the 'project driveway' for intersection 13, (east of Page 2 of 6 the proposed health club) has been Included in the traffic analysis justifies the inclusion at this level of study of the RPOA entrance driveway (Intersection 10) and the RPOA exit driveway (Intersection 13). First for reader orientation the existing lane geometrics and intersection numbering are shown below (Fig 3, 10/2015 Traffic Analysis). A graphic comparison of the subject traffic study intersections traffic flow diagrams will be given below and compared with an aerial of the actual intersection configurations. Legend ❑ Signal D Right Turn Overlap Heolth Club within The Shops at Rossmnor 1 Stop Sign D Defacto Right Turn Lane F Free Right Turn Fasting (2014) Lane Geometries and Traffic Control Dmcca P:%IPA14011Figur Wjg -03 relatinggm x1NWLum(9/3112015) Page 3 of 6 - L[GLMD jI1III WReaalaeh 0 .. Oa4GmraRg •f. �.. .• Q' - $N�dlArce lMVrucrian ... rwerU MelnweY tlt .. IY IIVYM1Mp Eenln Wel;•' _(D maw O .. Rh PAM MTnav0 In' 6 . 3�y �•C r • Engel Df • GarGRee DI f �n Anga` eD� t be \A�° 0f^ 0 O ® © Ten WOef WO.' Pi �.C•:. "'S _:....:..... �.i! i.:.. ae Oe0° P 6e1n1 61outl N m 00- ' D` pg°`D 4rn @ °° ..Q• a° ow Rana: [aw.n �hy {l,A °4 .'a�eo- +eaON ^e�GWf • , ^',i. \J,i.;: r:0 G�`g� . k y • Dlea ,©' •bee,.. A o , +�F i hhlllrs Ift� D � hhl�}e � hliH F O 1 WPwlPetap{ga } WGaa,v 9e ."R 3 BOlvA8M1 {r { YRDa98v0.TOaeO 5 r.YYw+.anme. •ra en + F +�� 4 :wIbMBMRwfmvae CSN! ) 4Y6°!CA& W 1 Yrin4lpfwW fbelp B 1YneRO bpo0r fe W a6Amuro.fi•'l+ +�O rhh r TTe �F* Iluwb Ro I: warbAev+w IJ en+a waror fl lame Ce.wM is wm.i rtwn4M Legend ❑ Signal D Right Turn Overlap Heolth Club within The Shops at Rossmnor 1 Stop Sign D Defacto Right Turn Lane F Free Right Turn Fasting (2014) Lane Geometries and Traffic Control Dmcca P:%IPA14011Figur Wjg -03 relatinggm x1NWLum(9/3112015) Page 3 of 6 :.. ,y�! r^ J• YS'J l I i� �'. i ' •ti vi �iiYi Pro p osed;site-of Health Club `' eN }✓' �r f /Jryn�]fj"9t� s, � .: %mil �.. ': Jay,, Y J . y ;'r���lI e'' E l /�.� t r� •� 1`k� �- \� nj ��1 r Rossmoor Pao =.256 umts_ j /.' �j1 't 4oil ROSS"" wA to moora t�ya� �hra�de�y I ICenter TL6 v I : v.11 — dMecitolRoad. — — Traffic Study Intersection 13 — Project Driveway/ z/n _ ; t 441 sz Rossmoor Center Way me m Z 40145 110 1 r 13128 r r 94 235 J � } r 74/42 + Z e N 88142 1 E- 1001166 _ F 7/ 21 18 ud R &R..,cf. 1281102 39/82 53194 _ t 521248 M 521149 1 4 r 28177 et 2 63 N y �Cmty, 15 Indr,W DWTo C Dr FIGURE 15 13 Project Owy /Rossmoor Center Wy ume Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor Project Completion Year (2076) with Full Occupancy Peak Hour Volumes (AM /PM) Aerial Image below shows actual offset intersection 13 configuration, with Rossmoor Park auto exit driveway for, 260 vehicles. The Rossmoor Park exit driveway exit was not Included in the IS /MND traffic study. , Page 5 of 6 comments, Attachment 6'Correspondence received after May 19th section, PDF page 115 The following now updated e- mailed 'development footprint' comments were not included In the above attachment. They were e- mailed to Steve Fowler and CC to Crystal Landavazo, Community Development, May 23d. The following updated e-mail comments justify documentation due to a concern in relation to CUP 15 -007 that is not elsewhere referenced. Our community has historic knowledge of the developments of the now Shops at Rossmoor. Many have expressed concern that the present proposed 37,000 sq. ft. health club development exceeds that permitted by prior EIR studies. Planning staff June 101h indicated the EIR development footprint referenced to me by Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services in 2006 was never adopted by the City. There- fore conveniently there is now no documented record of the'developmentfootprint' permit- ted square footage. The 'approved foot print' of the then existing developments was ex- tremely significant in 2004 in permitting the major redevelopment of the then Village at Ross- moor without the need for a costly E.I.R. study to be under taken. The staff analysis, page 3, Parking calculations, details for the first time publicly the total exist- ing and proposed total sq. ft. of Shops at Rossmoor uses proposed being 413,235 sq. ft. Are we there is no record in City files of the pre -2004 developed area of the Village at Rossmoor? If so, are we to assume there is no CEQA E.I.R. stipulated sq. ft, limit on future Shops at Ross- moor use developments as long as they are within permitted environmental parameters? In other words the concept of a development sq. ft. footprint limiting development is not valid for the Shops at Rossmoor? Page 6 of 6 From: David Zawolkow [ mailto :daveC@modernsignspress.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:13 PM To: Jim Basham Subject: Health Club addition Unfortunately I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting regarding the addition of a health club to the current center. There are significant traffic considerations that must be addressed prior to any addition. Considered are not only entrances from Rossmoor but also from Seal Beach Blvd. The entrance that leads to Sprouts is currently a bottleneck and will obviously get worse. Hopefully all traffic considerations will be solved prior to any agreement to go ahead with any Center additions. Thank you. Dave Zawolkow Dana Engstrom From: Jim Basham Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:35 AM To: Steven Fowler; Crystal Landavazo; Dana Engstrom Subject: FW: Health Club addition Another written correspondence. Thanks - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Zawolkow [mailto:dave @modernsignspress.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 12:13 PM To: Jim Basham Subject: Health Club addition Unfortunately I am unable to attend the upcoming meeting regarding the addition of a health club to the current center. There are significant traffic considerations that must be addressed prior to any addition. Considered are not only entrances from Rossmoor but also from Seal Beach Blvd. The entrance that leads to Sprouts is currently a bottleneck and will obviously get worse. Hopefully all traffic considerations will be solved prior to any agreement to go ahead with any Center additions. Thank you. Dave Zawolkow From: Bogart's Coffee fmailto :infoCalboaartscoffee.com] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 10:52 PM To: Ellery Deaton; David Sloan; Mike Varipapa; Gary Miller; Sandra Massa - Lavitt; Jim Basham Subject: Proposed Entertainment regulations Dear Council members: I wanted to give you an advance copy of what I plan to say Monday for your review. Thank you so much for all you do for Seal Beach! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Dear Mayor Massa - Lavitt, Esteemed Council Members and City Staff: I read with interest the study done by the Acoustics Group on behalf of the City of Seal Beach. I certainly respect the sound level limits proposed by the study, and believe that I am in compliance with those levels as they are measured in the relevant areas — 55 Db in the residential areas. However, I am not in agreement with the time constraints for music, to end by 9pm and limiting the days to Thursday through Saturday evenings. As I mentioned on my previous presentation to the Council, music is a way we can generate some business particularly in the times of the week when we may not have the foot traffic we desire. We are certainly cognizant of the guidelines as set by the Main Street Specific Zone with respect to business opening and closing times indicating closing time of 10pm Sun - Thursday and 11pmFri and Sat pm and holidays. We certainly abide by those guidelines. In addition, our music on any day of the week is kept to a minimum volume as not to disrupt the peace of the surrounding areas, commercial and residential. Our music provides many benefits to the community. 1. We enhance the community with the provision of artistic talent, while being mindful of any impact to the surrounding areas. 2. We provide a safe destination for local students and the community at large where they can relax, visit as well as enjoy or perform as local musical talent without being in an alcohol- serving environment. 3. And third, we provide sales tax revenue to the city by having additional customers at our place of business on a weeknight (Tuesday) when we have Open Mic night, which would otherwise be a slow night. I realize the importance of keeping the sound of the music at a reasonable volume. Bogart's tiny seating area is no larger than 20 feet by 15 feet. Certainly, my customers would find it unbearable inside the store if the music were very loud. In the warmest times of year, the door may be open to allow air to circulate and on occasion, the sound of some music has reached out to the (permitted) benches outside. It is my responsibility as a business owner to make sure that the musicians maintain the low volume levels to respect the community. I believe that the type of musical performance that we host enhances the beautiful small town atmosphere that we all want to preserve. Thank you all for your consideration. Best Regards, JoAnn Adams Bogart's Coffee House 905 Ocean Ave. Seal Beach, CA 90740 562- 431 -2226 Regards, JoAnn Adams Dana Engstrom From: Jim Basham Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:31 AM To: Dana Engstrom; Steven Fowler; Crystal Landavazo Subject: FW: Proposed Entertainment regulations Good morning and please find attached another correspondence for tonight Thanks From: Bogart's Coffee [mailto:info @bogartscoffee.com] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 10:52 PM To: Ellery Deaton; David Sloan; Mike Varipapa; Gary Miller; Sandra Massa- Lavitt; Jim Basham Subject: Proposed Entertainment regulations Dear Council members: I wanted to give you an advance copy of what I plan to say Monday for your review. Thank you so much for all you do for Seal Beach! Dear Mayor Massa- Lavitt, Esteemed Council Members and City Staff: I read with interest the study done by the Acoustics Group on behalf of the City of Seal Beach. I certainly respect the sound level limits proposed by the study, and believe that I am in compliance with those levels as they are measured in the relevant areas — 55 Db in the residential areas. However, I am not in agreement with the time constraints for music, to end by 90M and limiting the days to Thursday through Saturday evenings. As I mentioned on my previous presentation to the Council, music is a way we can generate some business particularly in the times of the week when we may not have the foot traffic we desire. We are certainly cognizant of the guidelines as set by the Main Street Specific Zone with respect to business opening and closing times indicating closing time of 101)m Sun - Thursday and 11ymFri and Sat pm and holidays. We certainly abide by those guidelines. In addition, our music on any day of the week is kept to a minimum volume as not to disrupt the peace of the surrounding areas, commercial and residential. Our music provides many benefits to the community. 1. We enhance the community with the provision of artistic talent, while being mindful of any impact to the surrounding areas. 2. We provide a safe destination for local students and the community at large where they can relax, visit as well as enjoy or perform as local musical talent without being in an alcohol- serving environment. 3. And third, we provide sales tax revenue to the city by having additional customers at our place of business on a weeknight (Tuesday) when we have Open Me night, which would otherwise be a slow night. I realize the importance of keeping the sound of the music at a reasonable volume. Bogart's tiny seating area is no larger than 20 feet by 15 feet. Certainly, my customers would find it unbearable inside the store if the music were very loud. In the warmest times of year, the door may be open to allow air to circulate and on occasion, the sound of some music has reached out to the (permitted) benches outside. It is my responsibility as a business owner to make sure that the musicians maintain the low volume levels to respect the community. I believe that the type of musical performance that we host enhances the beautiful small town atmosphere that we all want to preserve. Thank you all for your consideration. Best Regards, JoAnn Adams Bogart's Coffee House 905 Ocean Ave. Seal Beach, CA 90740 562 - 431 -2226 Regards, JoAnn Adams 1111I��11111 111111,�mijjj 111111111111111 11 16897 Pacific Coast Highway P.O. Box 369 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 OVER 1 BILLION IN SALES AND OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE June 20, 2016 Re: 25 A Surfside Avenue, Surf side, CA 90743 To whom it may concern: Our residence is a two -story, beachfront home, on the sand, with a 10' second floor deck on the beach, we built in 2004. The deck was approved by the Colony and Seal Beach Planning Department. We are the preeminent Realtors in Surfside, as well as other local beach communities. As Realtors, we are obligated to inform prospective buyers of local rules, regulations and building scenarios. We want it to be clear that we, when asked by the buyers of 25 A Surfside Avenue, told the buyers that our home had a second floor 10' balcony and that the colony rules, regarding the addition of a 10 foot deck, was allowed for homes that were built on grade, after checking to see if there had been any changes in the rules, we informed the buyers that there had been no changes and they would only need to draw and submit their plan to the colony and Seal Beach Planning Department. We also stated that because the existing rules do allow such a deck on their property, the request to do so, would not be seeking a variance. Currently, literally 1/3 of the beachfront properties in surfside, have such decks and any remodel or new home would surely want one as well. We have reviewed the plans and see no reason that their plans would not be approved. It would be a travesty, if the owners of 25 A Surfside Avenue, were denied to have a deck, that is in conformity to the rules and where precedent has been set forth, by so many of their neighbors. Lastly, as owners, we are extremely aware of the added value such a deck brings to beachfront properties. Sincerely, Chuck cemi Jo Quinn PO Box 276 26A Surfside Avenue Surfside, CA 90743 562 -592 -2080 June 7, 2016 Seal Beach Planning Commission 211 8`h Street Seal Beach, California 90740 RE: Smallwood - 25A Surfside Ave. Surfside Request for approval of deck extension As the owner of the home directly next door to Bre and Jason Smallwood, I am writing to state my approval of their proposed deck expansion. It is my understanding that the Surfside Architectural Committee has approved the detailed plans and as such they are in compliance with the deck lease and related rules and regulations. Therefore there should be no issues as to their rights to complete their new deck. Thank you, Cf '"O Jo Quinn To Whom It May Concern, The owners of 25 A are planning to build a 10 foot deck on their second story with supporting columns. They are going through the legal process to ensure compliance and gain approval following all rules and regulations of the Surfside Colony, City of Seal Beach, and all additional necessary channels. By signing the below, I understand the above and approve of the plans for 25 A. Date: Name: /1%L � Signature: Address: