HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 Attachment 1ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 17 -15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE
PROJECT, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO. 17 -15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 16 -7 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 37,000 SQ. FT.
HEALTH CLUB (FITNESS CENTER) AT 12411 SEAL BEACH
BOULEVARD WITHIN THE SHOPS AT ROSSMOOR IN THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING AREA, ADOPTING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
Section 1. Martin Potts of MPA ( "the applicant") on behalf of the property
owner CPT Shops at Rossmoor, LLC, submitted an application to the City of Seal
Beach Department of Community Development for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16 -7
with an associated Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) with a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The proposed Final EIR analyzes the potential
environmental effects of constructing and operating a health club (fitness center) ( "the
Project") to be located at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, California, in an
existing shopping center, the Shops at Rossmoor, within the Commercial General (CG)
zoning area.
Section 2. The application reflects that the subject property is a puzzle piece-
shaped parcel with a lot area of approximately 1,544,202 sq. ft. or (35.45 acres). The
property is approximately 1,427 feet wide by 1,007 feet deep. The site is surrounded on
the north, south and west by residential uses and to the east by commercial uses. The
subject property is currently developed as a commercial shopping center with
approximately 413,029 square feet of gross building area. The applicant is requesting
approval of CUP 16 -7 and certification of the Final EIR to construct and operate a large
scale commercial recreational use that is approximately 37,000 square feet in gross
floor area. The health club is proposed to operate seven days a week. Hours of
operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
Section 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal.
Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14
Cal. Code Reg. Section 15000 at seq.), the City, as lead agency, determined that the
proposed development of a health club (fitness center) constitutes a project that is
subject to environmental review under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. On January 4, 2017, the City, in conjunction with environmental
consultant MIG, Inc., published and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the
Initial Study (collectively NOP /IS) to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR),
Page 11 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
to all agencies and person that might be affected by the Project. The NOP was
distributed through OPR (State Clearinghouse No. 2017011033). The NOP /IS was
circulated for public comment for a 30-day public review period extending from January
4, 2017 through February 3, 2017. The NOP /IS was also made available for public
review on the City's website at www.sealbeachca.gov and at four locations in the City
including the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department, the Mary Wilson
Library, the Los Alamitos - Rossmoor Library, and the Leisure World Library.
Section 5. During the public comment period on the NOP /IS, the City of Seal
Beach received comments from numerous members of the public as well as from four
other public agencies, the O.C. Public Works / O.C. Development Services/ Planning
Division, Native American Heritage Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation.
Section 6. Following conclusion of the public review period of the NOP /IS, the
City in conjunction with MIG, Inc., caused preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Draft EIR) On March 9, 2017, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR
was published in the Sun Newspaper on March 9, 2017, and the NOC and Draft EIR
were transmitted to the State Clearinghouse and distributed to numerous State, federal,
and local agencies and organizations, with comments requested by April 17, 2017. The
NOC and the Draft EIR were also circulated for public review for a 47-day public
comment period beginning on March 9, 2017 and ending on April 26,2017. Copies of
the NOC and Draft EIR were also made available for public review on the City's website
at www.sealbeachca.00v and at four locations in the City including the City of Seal
Beach Community Development Department, the Mary Wilson Library, the Los
Alamitos - Rossmoor Library, and the Leisure World Library.
Section 7. During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the City of Seal
Beach received comments from other public agencies, including the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), City of Los
Alamitos, and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and from members of
the public.
Section 8. In accordance with Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Section
3.10.005, on April 5, 2017, a duly noticed public meeting was conducted by the Seal
Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) during the public comment period
on the proposed Draft EIR. The EQCB received public comments on the Draft EIR, and
forwarded those public comments and the EQCB's comments to City staff to be
incorporated into the Draft EIR, and to be included in the record submitted to the
Planning Commission as part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the
proposed Final EIR and Project, in accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005(F).
Section 9. The City reviewed all Comments submitted on the Draft EIR, and
Responses to the Comments were prepared and circulated to the public agencies in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088. None of the Comments presented any new significant environmental
Page 2 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the
Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Section 10. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices,
the Comments and Responses to the Comments on the Draft EIR, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) was released to the public and all commenting public
agencies on June 9, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final
EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).
Section 11. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on June 19, 2017 to consider the proposed Final EIR with Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and the proposed Project. At the public hearing, the
Planning Commission received into the record the Final EIR, as well as all written
comments submitted after April 24, 2017, information presented by City staff and its
environmental review, all technical studies, appendices, reports, and oral and written
testimony from interested persons (the "record of proceedings "). Following receipt of all
written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing.
Section 12. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the entire
record of proceedings. The record of proceedings is on file and available for public
examination during normal business hours at Seal Beach City Hall, Planning
Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California, during regular business hours,
and is posted on the City's website at: http: / /www.sealbeachca.gov /. The custodian of
the records is the Director of Community Development.
Section 13. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City,
before approving a project subject to CEQA, make one or more of the following written
finding(s) for each significant effect identified in a final environmental impact report
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
C. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the Final EIR.
Page 3 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Section 14. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain some
or all or the main objectives of the proposed project while avoiding or substantially
lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects that would occur.
Section 15. These required findings for the Final EIR are set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
A. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than
significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures are
described in Exhibit A, Sections IV and V, respectively.
B. Environmental impacts, or specific aspects of those impacts, identified in
the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less
than significant levels after mitigation, are discussed in Exhibit A, Section
VI.
C. No environmental impacts remain significant and unavoidable after
mitigation, as discussed in Exhibit A, Section VII.
D. Alternatives to the Project that might reduce significant environmental
impacts, and the reasons for rejecting those alternatives, are discussed in
Exhibit A, Section VIII.
Section 16. The Final EIR identified mitigation measures that will mitigate any
or all significant noise impacts to a level of insignificance, and incorporated those
mitigation measures into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (or MMRP), in
accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines
15091(d). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth mitigation
measures to reduce noise impacts, which are set out on Exhibit B, attached to this
Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 17. After due consideration of the proposed Project and the record of
proceedings, and based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record and in the
exercise of its independent judgment, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. All of the recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 16, inclusive, are
true and correct.
B. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample
notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed
Project. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently considered the record of
proceedings before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Page 4 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 15-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
D. The Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the
Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the
extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, set
forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto. The Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the Project (Exhibit B hereto) was completed in
compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
E. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission.
F. The additional information provided in the staff reports, in the Comments
on the Draft EIR and the Responses thereto, and evidence presented in
oral and written testimony, do not constitute new information requiring
recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented
has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation
measure, or an alternative that the City has declined to implement.
G. Approval of this project involves no potential for adverse effects, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an
adverse impact on fish and wildlife.
H. The Final EIR is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Planning Commission hereby certifies the Final EIR for the proposed
Project, adopts the findings attached as Exhibit A, and adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B. The
mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program are incorporated into the Project and made a part
of its implementation.
Section 18. The Planning Commission hereby instructs the Director of
Community Development to file appropriate documentation with the County of Orange.
Section 19. The approval of this Resolution may be appealed to the City
Council within ten (10) days of issuance of this decision.
Section 20. The time within which to seek review of this determination, if any, is
governed by the California Environmental Quality Act or other similar shortened period
of limitations.
[resolution continues on following page]
Page 5 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a
meeting thereof held on June 19, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners
NOES:
Commissioners
ABSENT:
Commissioners
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners
Deb Machen
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Crystal Landavazo
Planning Commission Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 6 of 6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
These Findings and Facts in Support of Findings are organized into the following
sections:
Section I, Introduction, outlines the statutory requirements for certification of an
environmental impact report under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Section II, Project Objectives, outlines the objectives of the proposed Project.
Section III, Background, provides a general description of the proposed Project,
the General Plan and zoning provisions applicable to the Project.
Section IV, Effects Determined to Be Less than Sianificant/No Impact in the Initial
Study /Notice of Preoaration, provides a summary of those environmental
issue areas where no impacts will occur as determined in the Initial Study.
Section V, Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Imoact Without
Mitigation for the Proposed Project in the EIR, provides a summary of
insignificant impacts as determined in the EIR and findings adopting the
EIR's conclusions of insignificance.
Section VI, Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be
Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level, provides a summary of
potentially significant environmental effects for which implementation of
identified feasible mitigation measures will avoid or substantially reduce
the environmental effects to less than significant levels.
Section VII, Environmental Effects that Remain Sionificant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation, discusses whether there are any environmental effects that
remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Section VIII, Project Alternatives, provides a summary of the alternatives
considered for the proposed Project.
I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et
seq. (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000, et
seq. (CEQA Guidelines) provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies
one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the
public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A -1
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency; or
3. Speck economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEOA, the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach (City) hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the
proposed Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 for construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. health club
(fitness center) (hereinafter Project) in an existing shopping center, the Shops at
Rossmoor located in the City. These findings are based upon the evidence presented in
the records, documents and testimony, both written and oral (Record of Proceedings)
presented to the Planning Commission during the hearing process, including all of the
following: the proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) consisting of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and all of its appendices, the Comments
and Responses to the Comments on the Draft EIR including all supplemental technical
reports included therein, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and all
staff reports, consultants' reports and oral and written testimony presented during the
hearing process; and all of their contents.'
II. Project Objectives.
As set forth in the EIR, the objectives of this Project (Project Objectives) are as follows:
1. To expand the square footage and uses within the center consistent with
the center's current General Plan and zoning designations.
' The Final EIR includes two volumes, with eight appendices as follows:
• Appendix A:
LA Fitness Health Club Initial Study;
• Appendix B:
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters;
• Appendix C:
Air Quality Worksheets;
• Appendix D:
Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach;
• Appendix E:
Traffic Analysis: Health Club Within The Shops at Rossmoor;
• Appendix F:
Orange County Traffic Engineering Rossmoor Traffic Study;
• Appendix G:
Collision Report Summary, Orange County Traffic Engineering Department; and
• Appendix H:
Memo on Additional Long -Tenn Noise Monitoring
A -2
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final OR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
2. To add a use to the center in a new structure that will be located within the
existing underutilized parking field, but will maintain the center's
compliance with all applicable parking requirements.
3. To add a use which will not detract from the overall experience of existing
tenants by:
a. Disrupting existing parking and shopping patterns that are important to
existing tenants in the center; or
b. Diminishing or obscuring exposure of existing center business to traffic
along Seal Beach Boulevard.
4. To add a use which will not displace existing uses or require the
demolition of existing leasable space, thus preserving existing lease and
sales tax revenue opportunities.
5. To add a use for which potential environmental impacts, particularly those
related to traffic and noise, can be mitigated to a level of insignificance so
as not to adversely impact current tenants and adjacent neighbors.
111. Background.
The proposed Project involves construction and operation of a health club (fitness
center) to be located at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, California. The
proposed Project site is currently used as an asphalt parking lot in the northwestern
portion of the parking lot for the Shops at Rossmoor, on Rossmoor Center Way
between Seal Beach Boulevard and Montecito Road.
The subject property is a puzzle piece- shaped parcel with a lot area of approximately
1,544,202 sq. ft. or 35.45 acres. The property is approximately 1,427 feet wide by 1,007
feet deep. The Project site is surrounded on the north, south and west by residential
uses and to the east by commercial uses. The commercial shopping center is currently
developed with approximately 413,029 square feet of gross building area. Immediately
to the west of the Shops at Rossmoor is a high- density residential development located
in unincorporated Rossmoor.
The applicant is requesting approval of CUP 16 -7 and certification of the Final EIR to
construct and operate a large scale commercial recreational use that is approximately
37,000 square feet in gross floor area. 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.
A -3
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
During the course of environmental review of the Project, the traffic analysis submitted
to the City found that under existing conditions without the Project, the existing
northbound left -turn lane on Seal Beach Boulevard onto Rossmoor Center Way
experiences queuing deficiencies during periods of peak demand. The Project includes
a reconfiguration of the existing northbound left -turn lane which will extend that lane by
145 feet. The Final EIR concluded that this planned element will correct the existing
deficiency and preclude any additional queuing deficiency caused by the Project.
Although not necessary to mitigate impacts of the project on traffic, the applicant also
proposes an option to widen Rossmoor Center Way to install a second westbound lane.
This improvement provides for a dedicated lane for turns into the health center parking
lot, allowing no delays to through traffic travelling westbound on Rossmoor Center Way.
The Project site is designated General Commercial in the Seal Beach General Plan and
is zoned General Commercial (GC). The City's land use policies and regulations allow a
mix of general and service commercial businesses. The General Plan Land Use
Element recommends retaining the land use classification for the Rossmoor Center as
General Commercial. The GC zone allows a range of retail sales and service uses by
right, such as those occupying The Shops at Rossmoor. Large -scale commercial
recreation uses, such as the proposed health club project, are permitted subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
IV
7.0; Appendices A, C and
The City conducted an Initial Study (Appendix A) to determine potential significant
environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based on the Initial Study, it was
determined that the proposed Project would have no impact or a less than significant
impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental
topic areas listed below and were not analyzed in detail in the EIR because they
required no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant.
A. AESTHETICS (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista.
2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Potential
impacts would be less than significant.
A-4
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
4. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area. Impacts would be less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0-1) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES (Final EIR, Sections
6.0 and 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use.
2. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract.
3. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production, does not contain any type of land zoned for
forest land or timberland, and the Project Site and surrounding
properties are not being currently managed or used for forest land.
4. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non - forest use.
5. The Project would not involve any 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.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -1) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
C. AIR QUALITY (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the proposed 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 Project would not 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
A -5
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, 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 as compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires daily watering to limit dust and particulate
matter emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Appendix A (Initial Study), and Appendix C (Air Quality Worksheets).
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. The Project would not 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.
3. The Project would not 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.
4. The Project would not 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.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species.
A-6
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
5. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.
6. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The Project does not 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. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -1) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.
2. The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. Impacts would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. Impacts would
be less than significant.
4. The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -1) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.
A -7
Resolution 17 -15
Cerhricahon of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
2. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -
related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Impacts
would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil. During construction, compliance with South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) soil stabilization measures
and City standard erosion control practices will prevent wind
erosion and water erosion. Impacts would be less than significant.
4. The Project would not be located on expansive soil and would not
create substantial risks to life or property. Impacts would be less
than significant.
5. The Project would not 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.
Support for all of these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the
Final EIR, in Section 7.0 (pp. 7.0 -1 through 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (Final EIR, Appendices A and C)
1. The Project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the Project must
comply with the California Building Code ( "CBC"), including the Green Standards
Building Code, and the Project does not include any feature that would alter energy
demands so as to interfere with implementation of these requirements. Support for
these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR, in
Appendix A (Initial Study), and Appendix C (Air Quality Worksheets).
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Final EIR, Section 7.0;
Appendix A)
The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the Project does not
propose or facilitate any activity involving significant use, routine transport or disposal of
A-8
Resolution 17 -15
Certif/cation of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
hazardous substances as part of the health club use. During construction, routine
construction control measures and best management practices would be sufficient to
control any minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste
that are typical of construction projects. Hazardous materials common at commercial
uses such as health clubs include cleaners, pesticides, and pool chemicals which are
disposed of as household hazardous waste, and their disposal does not present a
substantial health risk to the community. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not 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.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the health club will
have a pool, which will involve the use of potentially hazardous chemical (e.g., chlorine)
for public health purposes. The amounts stored will be minimal for routine maintenance,
and storage will be required to conform with requirements of the Orange County Fire
Authority. Impacts would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, there are no schools
located within one - quarter mile of the Project Site. Operation of the health club will not
generate hazardous emissions, and the Project does not include handling, production or
disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Use and storage of pool chemicals will be
subject to existing regulations. Impacts would be less than significant.
4. The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and would thus not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
5. Although the Project would be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, the Project would not result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the Project Site is
located within the planning area for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB),
but the Project is located outside of the noise contours shown on the Airport Environs
Land Use Plan ( AELUP) and is therefore compatible with AELUP noise policies and
impacts relating to exposing people to noise would be less than significant. The Project,
A -9
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
when constructed, would not create any hazards to air navigation because the height of
the proposed building will not exceed 35 feet, which is the maximum allowable height in
the General Commercial zone and consistent with other commercial /retail buildings in
the center. Compliance with existing codes and standards will prevent light spillover
from the Project onto adjacent properties and also prevent lighting from potentially
impacting approaching or departing aircraft because shielding and orientation
requirements will prevent light from being substantially visible. The Project is not located
within any Clear Zone /Runway Protection Zone of the JFTB. Impacts would be less than
significant.
6. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the Project would be
designed in accordance with Fire Codes and other emergency response requirements
made by the City, including sufficient space around the building for emergency
personnel and equipment access and emergency evacuation. Project driveways will
also be designed to allow emergency access and evaluation in accordance with Fire
Code requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
The Project would not 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.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (Final EIR, Section 7.0;
Appendix A)
1. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project would not 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. Impacts would be less than
significant.
3. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or of -site. Impacts would be less
than significant.
A -10
Resolution 17 -15
Certfication of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
4. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or of -site. Impacts would be less than significant.
5. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage
systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff. Impacts
would be less than significant.
6. The proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade
water quality.
7. The proposed Project would not place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows.
8. The proposed Project would not place structures within a 100 -year
flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows.
9. The proposed Project would not 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.
10. The proposed Project would not be at risk of inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts related to seiche and tsunami are not
expected to occur.
11. The Project would not have impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable impacts on hydrology and water quality.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The proposed project would not physically divide an established
community.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the project site is
located on the edge of an existing shopping center, adjacent to a condominium complex
to the north which is separated from the center by a block wall. The project would
replace existing asphalt with a health club. The project is consistent and compatible with
surrounding land uses in the center and will not divide an established community.
A -11
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
2. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the Project is
consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning. The General Plan
designates the project site as General Commercial, and the site is zoned General
Commercial (GC). These regulations accommodate highway-oriented commercial uses
and a range of retail sales and services. Health clubs are permitted subject to approval
of a Conditional Use Permit.
3. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, as the
proposed site and surrounding areas are not part of any habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or any
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
K. MINERAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not 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 or a locally - important mineral resource
recovery site, or the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
L. NOISE (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendices A and D)
The Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts
would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would
be less than significant.
3. The Project would be 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, but the Project would not expose
A -12
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels.
4. The Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the
Project area to excessive noise levels.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2), Appendix A (Initial Study), and Appendix D (Assessment of
Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach).
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
The Project would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -2) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
N. PUBLIC SERVICES (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire
protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
fire protection services.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, no new or expanded
fire protection facilities would be required as a result of this Project. The Project 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 would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered police
protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police
CStat
Resolution 17 -15
Certillcah'on or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for, police
protection services.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, 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 and such
activities can be handled with the existing level of police resources. Impacts on police
protection services would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered school
facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for school facilities.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, this Project would not
have any residential population and would not generate any direct demand for school
facilities. The Project proponent would be required to pay developer fees to the Los
Alamitos Unified School District, prior to the issuance of building permits which would
help support provision of school services for the community as a whole. Impact to
school facilities would be less than significant.
4. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered park and
recreation facilities, need for new or physically altered park and
recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
park and recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than
significant.
5. The Project would not 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
libraries, hospitals, or any other public facilities.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -3) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
O. RECREATION (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix A)
A -14
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
The Project would not 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.
2. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -3) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (Final EIR, Appendices A and E)
The Project would not 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.
2. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic pattems,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks.
3. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, the left -turn pocket
from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto Rossmoor Center Way will be extended an
additional 125 feet 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. Impacts
related to roadway design features and incompatible uses would be less than
significant.
4. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, 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. Impact would be less than significant.
A -15
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
5. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Initial Study, 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. Impacts would be less than
significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Appendix A (Initial Study) and Appendix E (Traffic Analysis: Health Club Within The
Shops at Rossmoor).
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Final EIR, Section 7.0; Appendix
A)
1. The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts
would be less than significant.
2. The Project would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not 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.
Impacts would be less than significant.
4. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed. Impacts would be less than
significant.
5. The Project would 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. Impacts would be
less than significant.
6. The Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs.
Impacts would be less than significant.
7. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
A -16
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR,
in Section 7.0 (p. 7.0 -3) and Appendix A (Initial Study).
V. Effects Determined to Be Less than SignificantiNo Impact Without
Mitigation for the Proposed Proiectin the EIR.
The EIR examined the following four issues that were not dismissed as less than
significant in the Initial Study: air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and traffic and
transportation. Each issue is discussed in separate sections in the EIR, along with other
required topics specked in the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR found that the
Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact or no impact without the
imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less
than significant environmental impact or no impact determination was made for each of
the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions
contained in the Final EIR, and no mitigation measures are required.
A. AESTHETICS (Final EIR, Section 6.0 and Appendix A)
There are no other projects in the immediate vicinity that are
proposed to be built in the near future, therefore, the project would
not contribute cumulatively to the degradation of scenic vistas,
views, visual character, or increase impacts related to light and
glare.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is more fully discussed in the Final
EIR in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -1), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix
A)
No agricultural impacts would be associated with the health club as
there are no agricultural resources in the project vicinity. The
Project would not contribute cumulatively to loss of farmland or
forest land, or conflict with agricultural or timberland zoning.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is more fully discussed in the Final
EIR in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -1), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
C. AIR QUALITY (Final EIR, Sections 4.1, 6.1 and 9.0, Appendices A and
C)
The proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard.
The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the South Coast Air Basin 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP).
A -17
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
As set out in the more expansive discussion in Section 4.1 of the Final EIR (see Impact
4.3.A, at p. 4.1 -10), 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; and therefore, the Project would not result in an increase
in the frequency of any air quality standards violation and would not case a new air
quality standards violation. 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, such as 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, also does not involve a General Plan Amendment, Speck Plan, and
is not considered a significant project under the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The
proposed Project would not conflict with the AQMP and no impact would occur.
2. The proposed Project would not violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation.
As set out in the more expansive discussion in the Final EIR in Section 4.1 (pp. 4.1 -10
through 4.1 -12), the proposed Project would generate short-term construction emissions
and long -tens operational emissions, but both would have a less than significant impact
on air quality when applying SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.1, to estimate emissions from
the proposed construction standards, no criteria pollutants would exceed the daily
emissions thresholds established by the SCAQMD; therefore construction impacts
would be less than significant.
Long -term criteria air pollutant emissions would result from the operation of the health
club. Long -term emissions are categorized as area source emissions (a combination of
small emissions sources including use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment,
use of consumer products and periodic repainting of the proposed structure), energy
demand emissions (use of electricity and natural gas), and operational emissions
(resulting from use of automobiles and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips
to and from the proposed health club). Using the CalEEMod modeling program, and trip
generation from the LSA Associates Traffic Analysis, the Final EIR determined that
long -term emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds established by the SCAQMD
and impacts would be less than significant.
3. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
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
A -18
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
exceed any SCAQMD daily threshold. As required for 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 actions to limit dust and particulate matter emissions. Impacts would be less
than significant.
4. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
The nearest land uses that are considered sensitive receptors are the residential
dwelling units located adjacent to the project site to the north and west. No schools are
located within one - quarter mile of the project site. The proposed Project 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 Project, therefore, would have a less than significant impact on sensitive
receptors relating to toxic pollutant emissions.
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. As discussed under Impact 4.3.B, the project would not exceed the local
significance thresholds developed by the SCAQMD. The proposed project would not
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations for PM10, PMZ.S, and
NO2. This impact would be less than significant.
5. 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.
Other concurrent construction projects and operations in the region, such as the Village
605 -3131 Katella Avenue Project and Fairfield Inn & Suites located in the City of Los
Alamitos, would be required to implement standard air quality regulations and mitigation
pursuant to CEQA requirements including compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, which
requires actions to limit dust and particulate matter emissions. Impacts would be less
than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.1 (pp. 4.1 -1 through 4.1 -13), Section 6.1 (pp. 6 -1 through 6 -2), Section 9.0
(pp. 9.0 -1 through 9.0 -28), Appendix A (Initial Study), and Appendix C (Air Quality Work
Sheets).
A -19
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 15-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
Because the Project would have no biological impact, it would not
contribute cumulatively to loss of listed or special concern species,
natural communities, wetlands, or movement corridors. Also, the
Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinance protecting
biological resources, including a habitat conservation plan.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
1. The project will not contribute cumulatively to a change or
significance in a historical, archaeological, or paleontological
resource, or adversely affect important Native American resources.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
F. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
1. The Project would not contribute cumulatively to exposing people or
structures to hazards associated with earthquakes, strong seismic
shaking, ground failure, landslides, or unstable soils.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in the Final EIR in
Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
G. GREENHOUSE GASES (Final EIR, Sections 4.2, 6.1 and 9.0, and
Appendices A and C)
1. The Project would not generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or indirectly.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in the Final EIR, the proposed Project
would generate GHG emissions from construction and operation of the new health club,
but GHG emissions with the proposed Project would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e
threshold; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
2. The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Project would be subject to the CALGREEN standards of the CBC, which require
that new development reduce water consumption, employ building commission to
increase building system efficiencies for large buildings, divert construction from
A -20
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
landfills, and utilize low pollutant -emitting finishing materials. The proposed Project does
not include any features that would interfere with implementation of these state and City
codes and plans. No impact would occur.
3. The project would not result in cumulative considerable GHG
impacts.
Unlike air quality, which is influenced by local and regional factors and is therefore
considered on the local or regional scale, the effects of global climate change are the
result of GHG emissions worldwide. Individual projects do not generate enough GHG
emissions to influence global climate change. Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is
by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project's contribution
to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. As described Section 4.2,
Greenhouse Gases, the proposed project would not result in direct or indirect GHG
emissions that have a significant effect on the environment or conflict with an applicable
GHG reduction plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, the project would not result in
cumulative considerable GHG impacts.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.2 (pp. 4.2 -1 through 4.2 -7), Section 6.1 (p. 6 -1), Section 9.0 (pp. 9.0 -1
through 9.0 -28), Appendix A (Initial Study), and Appendix C (Air Quality Work Sheets).
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. The project would not contribute cumulatively to exposing people to
hazards associated with the transport of hazardous materials,
hazardous materials upset, or hazardous emissions.
No significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be associated
with construction of the health club. The project would not contribute cumulatively to
exposing people to hazards associated with the transport of hazardous materials,
hazardous materials upset, or hazardous emissions because it is not the type of project
that involves routine transport of hazardous material, or which produces hazardous
emissions. No hazards associated with public or private airports impact the immediate
surrounding area.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and
Appendix A)
The project would not contribute cumulatively to the violation of any
water quality standards, depletion of groundwater resources,
altering drainage courses or patterns, flooding, or other water
quality degradation.
A -21
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
No significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be associated with
construction of the health club. The project would tie into the existing storm water
system of the shopping center and it would implement appropriate best management
practices in the design of the landscaping. During construction, the project would
comply with NPDES regulations.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
No direct impacts related to land use and planning would result
from the health club. Indirect impacts relating to air quality,
greenhouse gases, noise, and traffic/transportation are addressed
in this EIR. Because the project would not have any direct land use
impacts, the project would not contribute cumulatively to dividing a
community, creating conflicts with land use plans and policies, or
conflict with a habitat conservation plan.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
K. MINERAL RESOURCES (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
No impacts related to mineral resources would be associated with
the health club. Because the project would have no impacts on
mineral resources, it would not contribute cumulatively to the loss of
known mineral resources of local value to the region or State or
locally important mineral resources.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
L. NOISE (Final EIR, Sections 4.3 and 6.1 and Appendices A, D and H)
The proposed Project would not expose persons or generate noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
A noise study was undertaken by LSA Associates in January 2017 (Appendix D), and
more recent measures were taken in a supplemental noise monitoring conducted in
April 2017 at the request of the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB).
(Appendix H). A Community Noise Level Equivalent Level (CNEL) was calculated based
on the supplemental noise monitoring conducted in April 2017 (Appendix H). These
CNEL values ranged from CNEL 54 to 59. Changes in dBA levels were calculated for
potential future noise conditions due to future traffic volumes associated with the
proposed Project and increases in background traffic, using the original January 2017
A -22
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
traffic study (Appendix Q. Based on the CNEL, at approximately 1,000 feet from Seal
Beach Boulevard, the residential neighbors are barely affected by traffic noise, and
effects are similar for Montecito Road approximately 450 feet way. With respect to
Rossmoor Center Way, with decibel increases of at most 1.5, the proposed Project
would not result in any new uses or traffic general that would increase noise levels in
the vicinity or expose the residential neighbors to levels above those that are deemed
normally acceptable in the noise ordinance, or less than 61 CNEL. The impact would be
less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.3, Impact 4.3.A (pp. 4.3 -9 through 4.3 -10), and Table 4.3 -5; pp. 4.3 -1
through 4.3 -8 and Tables 4.3 -1 through Table 4.3 -3; Appendix A (Initial Study);
Appendix D (Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach);
and Appendix H (Memo on Additional Long -Tenn Noise Monitoring).
2. The proposed Project would not expose persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels.
Construction equipment associated with building the Project would be the only vibration
generating sources introduced by the Project, and the Municipal Code limits
construction to speck hours of the day, with no construction activity permitted on
Sundays. Based on calculations to the nearest sensitive receptor using vibration criteria
based on construction equipment provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),Z
the construction of the development is not anticipated to generate vibration levels that
exceed criteria given by the FTA. Impact would be less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.3 (pp. 4.3 -9 through 4.3 -10), Tables 4.3-4 and 4.3 -6, and Impact 4.3.B;
Appendix A (Initial Study); Appendix D (Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor
Health Club Seal Beach); and Appendix H (Memo on Additional Long -Term Noise
Monitoring).
3. With respect to traffic noise, because the noise and traffic studies
reflect that changes in dBA were calculated which show decibel
increases of at most 1.5, the proposed Project would not result in
any new uses or traffic generation that would increase noise levels
in the vicinity or expose the Project site to levels above those that
are deemed normally acceptable in the noise ordinance. Impact
would be less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.3 (pp. 4.3 -9 through 4.3 -10), Table 4.3 -5 and Impact 4.3.C; Appendix A
(Initial Study); Appendix D (Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club
I U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006),
referenced in the Final EIR, Section 3, p. 4.34, fir. 3, and p. 4.3 -10.
A -23
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach), Appendix E (Traffic Analysis: Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor),
and Appendix H (Memo on Additional Long -Tenn Noise Monitoring).
4. With respect to operational noise — indoor fitness activities, the
Final EIR determined that the proposed health club would host
various exercise activities (e.g., treadmill running, weight lifting,
basketball playing and swimming), as well as classes (e.g.,
aerobics and cycling). Based on noise reductions from exterior
building elements, doors, and windows, the Final EIR determined
that noise levels due to exercise activity within the health club are
calculated to be below Municipal Code limits during the day (55
dBA) and nighttime /early morning (50 dBA) at less than 40 dBA at
the residences. Impact would be less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.3 (pp. 4.3 -7 and 4.3 -11), Appendix A (Initial Study); Appendix D
(Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach), Appendix E
(Traffic Analysis: Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor), and Appendix H (Memo
on Additional Long -Term Noise Monitoring).
5. With respect to operational noise — outdoor parking lot activities,
the Final EIR determined that operation of the proposed Project
would produce noise associated with such activities as vehicle
traffic, delivery trucks, loud conversations, opening and closing of
car doors, car homs, etc. in the adjacent parking lots. The Final EIR
also assumed that delivery trucks would be relatively small, such as
for delivering packages. These noise sources are typical of
commercial /retail uses including those existing on -site at the
shopping center. Based on the noise analysis and modeling, the
loudest noise source to thresholds in the Noise Ordinance was the
car horn, which achieved 47 dBA, at the west residential complex
and 50 dBA at the north residential complex. Both these levels are
well below the limit of 50 dBA (Noise Ordinance). Impact would be
less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 4.3 (p. 4.3 -11), Appendix A (Initial Study); Appendix D (Assessment of
Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach), Appendix E (Traffic Analysis:
Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor), and Appendix H (Memo on Additional
Long -Tenn Noise Monitoring).
6. The project would not contribute cumulatively to an increase in
short-term or long-term noise or vibration impacts because the
cumulative projects considered in the analysis are too far away
from the project site to contribute to or exacerbate project noise.
A -24
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in the Final EIR in
Section 6.1 (pp. 6 -1 through 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study), Appendix D
(Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor Health Club Seal Beach), Appendix E
(Traffic Analysis: Health Club Within the Shops at Rossmoor), and Appendix H (Memo
on Additional Long -Term Noise Monitoring)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
1. No impacts related to population and housing would be associated
with construction of the health club, including growth- inducing
impacts since the project is an infill project. For this reason, the
project would not contribute cumulatively to inducing population
growth, displacing substantial numbers of housing units, or
displacing substantial numbers of people.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in the Final EIR in
Section 6.1 (pp. 6 -1 through 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
N. PUBLIC SERVICES (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
There are no other projects in the immediate vicinity that are
proposed to be built in the City in the near future; therefore, the
project would not contribute cumulatively to City's ability to provide
adequate services for fire protection, police protection, schools,
parks, or other public facilities.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (pp. 6 -1 through 6 -2), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
O. RECREATION (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and Appendix A)
No impacts related to recreation would be associated with the
health club. Because the project will have no impacts on recreation
resources, it would not contribute cumulatively to accelerated
degradation of neighborhood parks or to the need to construct or
expand recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -3), and Appendix A (Initial Study).
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC (Final EIR, Sections 4.4, 6.1 and
9.0 and Appendices A, E, F, and G)
The proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic that is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system; and the proposed Project would not exceed, either
A -25
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established
by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways.
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, LSA
Associates Inc. authored a January 2017 project - speck traffic/circulation and parking
analysis (Appendix E), based on the City's criteria for conducting traffic studies,
including the City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (March 2010) and the City's General
Plan (December 2003), which also included updated October 2016 traffic counts. An
Orange County Traffic Engineering Rossmoor Traffic Study (Appendix F) was also
reviewed. The study area covered by the LSA study includes Los Alamitos
Boulevard /Seal Beach Boulevard between Bradbury south to the Interstate 405
southbound and northbound ramps, St. Cloud Drive west from Seal Beach Boulevard
past Yellowtail Drive, Montecito Road north past Cope De Oro Drive and Mainway Drive
to Bradbury Road, and Rossmoor Center Way between Montecito Road and Seal
Beach Boulevard.
The Project includes two proposed access improvements: 1) lengthen the northbound
left -turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way
to 205 feet, and 2) widen Rossmoor Center Way between the internal driveway and
Seal Beach Boulevard in order to add an additional westbound lane to the first
intersection. The traffic study (Appendix E) shows that neither the widening of
Rossmoor Center Way nor the additional driveway is required to address a significant
traffic impact, reduce traffic impacts, or address traffic safety impacts.
The LSA traffic study determined the peak -hour intersection operations at signalized
intersections within the study, using intersection capacity utilization (ICU) in accordance
with City traffic guidelines. According to the City's Traffic Impact Guidelines, under the
ICU methodology, a Level of Service (LOS) at an intersection is considered
unsatisfactory when the ICU exceeds 0.90 (LOS D), and improvements are
recommended at locations that operate at LOS E or F. Based on the traffic analysis, for
Existing (2016) LOS for all intersections and roadway segments, currently operate at
satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better).
The traffic analysis under a study of trip generation and projected future conditions,
based on a review of the weekday A.M., P.M. and weekend peak -hour LOS at fifteen
study intersections and eleven roadway segments for seven scenarios, including 1)
Existing (2016) conditions with current occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail
center; 2) Existing (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the retail center; 3)
Existing (2016) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor
retail center plus the proposed health club; 4) Project Completion Year (2018)
conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center; 5)
Project Completion Year (2018) conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops
at Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed health club; 6) Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout conditions with estimated full occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail
center; and 7) Future (2035) General Plan Buildout conditions with estimated full
A -26
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final OR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
occupancy of the Shops at Rossmoor retail center plus the proposed health club. 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.
The study also evaluated the Shops at Rossmoor at full occupancy, by including traffic
counts for the unoccupied restaurant site (the former Marie Callender's) evaluating the
seven scenarios, based on a high- turnover restaurant use.
Analysis of each scenario reflected that all study area intersections and roadway
segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Project
Completion Year (2018) with Full Occupancy conditions, without and with the proposed
health club. For future near -term conditions with cumulative traffic, impacts would be
less than significant. For future long -range conditions, a growth rate of 0.5 percent per
year was applied over time between Existing and Future (2035) General Plan Buildout
traffic conditions.
The study determined that:
For existing (2016) with full occupancy conditions, all study area intersections
and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory (LOS D or
better). (Final EIR, Section 4.4, pp. 4.4 -12 through 4.4 -14.)
For existing (2016) with full occupancy plus health club conditions, all study area
intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory
(LOS D or better) with the addition of Project traffic, and traffic impacts on
intersections and roadway segments would be less than significant. Analysis of
the near -term 2018 traffic condition (the expected Project completion year) using
an ambient growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, resulted in the determination that
all study intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better) under Project Completion Year (2018) with
Full Occupancy conditions, without and with the health club. For future near -term
2018 conditions with cumulative traffic, impacts would be less than significant.
(Final EIR, Section 4.4, pp. 4.4 -15 through 4.4 -18.)
The traffic study also analyzed the scenario of Future (2035) General Plan
Buildout Conditions, applying a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year between
Existing and Future (2035) General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. The analysis
included thee trip assignment previously generated for the unoccupied
restaurant. 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 would be less than significant.
(Final EIR, Section 4.4, pp. 4.4 -19 through 4.4 -22.)
The study determined that the addition of Project traffic at the intersection of Seal
Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way results in an ICU increase that
meets the City's threshold of significance of 0.040 during the weekday P.M. peak
A -27
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
hour. However, the study also determined because this intersection is anticipated
to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during all peak hours in the Future
(2035) General Plan Buildout with Full Occupancy with Project Conditions, and
all study area intersections and roadway facilities are anticipated to operate at
satisfactory LOS from Existing (2016) to Future (2035) General Plan Building
with Full Occupancy plus Project traffic conditions, operational improvements
aimed at alleviating LOS deficiencies are not warranted and have not been
recommended. The study found that the Project would improve the stacking
distance to eliminate queuing deficiencies at the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way. (Final EIR, Section 4.4, p. 4.4 -19.)
In accordance with the City's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, the consultant also
evaluated accident history, including the identification and analysis of intersections or
roadway segments having five or more reported accidents within the most recent 12-
month period. Five accidents are a generalized figure used by City staff as an indication
of potential problems that could require improvements. Based on the analysis, the
intersections operate at an acceptable LOS. (Final EIR, Section 4.4, p. 4.4 -5).
The Traffic Study also included a pedestrian and cyclist survey in the surrounding
residential area, including five intersections along Montecito Road and St. Cloud Drive
between Bradbury Road and Seal Beach Boulevard, due to the presence of crosswalks.
The survey found that highest number of peak -hour pedestrians observed to cross
Montecito Road or St. Cloud were at the marked crosswalk on the south side of the
intersection of Montecito Road and Rossmoor Center Way, with 15 pedestrians in the
weekday P.M. peak hour, which does not coincide with release from local schools,
suggesting these pedestrians are not students. This intersection and other intersections
along Montecito Road and St. Cloud are low delay intersections (LOS A or B), and as
such pedestrian and traffic conditions along Montecito and St. Cloud are anticipated to
remain largely the same. (Final EIR, Section 4.4, p. 4.4 -5).
2. The proposed Project would not conflict or result in a change in air
traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks.
The proposed Project site is not within an area subject to an airport land use plan and
thus would not change air traffic patterns. Support for these environmental impact
conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR in Section 6.1 (pp. 6 -1 through 6 -2), and
Appendix A (Initial Study).
3. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due
to design features or incompatible uses.
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
traffic consultant carried out a site assessment of the shopping center with full
occupancy, both without and with the proposed health club, to examine traffic volumes,
A -28
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts that might be created with the proposed Project and
associated access improvements. The assessment determined as follows:
a. Site Adjacent Driveways and Circulation (at Rossmoor Park)
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
section of Rossmoor Center Way adjacent to the Project site between Montecito Road
and the internal driveways into Pei Wei and Sprouts operate at acceptable levels of
service. The operations at the unsignalized Rossmoor Park outbound -only driveway to
the north of the site and along that segment are considered acceptable and would not
result in unacceptable interruptions in vehicular movements because of traffic. Traffic
counts at the unsignalized Rossmoor Park outbound-only driveway to the north of the
site and along the segment, weekday A.M., P.M. and weekend peak -hour traffic counts
revealed a maximum of 46 peak -hour vehicles leaving the residences during any peak
hour, or one vehicle every 78 seconds during the weekday P.M. peak hour. (Final EIR,
Section 4.4, p. 4.4 -23)
b. Rossmoor Center Way and Shops at Rossmoor Access and
Circulation
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
site assessment analyzed existing and potential turn - pocket queuing issues at site
access points and site - adjacent intersections, and determined that queuing results for
Existing (2016) with Full Occupancy without and with the Project traffic indicates that
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. Because this northbound left -turn pocket will be improved by the applicant
through Project implementation, the added Project traffic is not anticipated to spill back
into the adjacent traffic through lane; and the existing queuing issue would be
eliminated with the lengthening of the northbound left -turn pocket. (Final EIR, Section
4.4, pp. 4.4 -23 through 4.4.-24.)
C. Project Off -Site Improvements — Northbound Left -Turn
Pocket Lengthening
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
northbound left -turn pocket currently experiences queues that could extend past the
existing left -turn pocket during periods of peak demand. Although the proposed Project
to the existing and future deficiency is at most 17 percent during any peak hour under
Existing (2016) with Full Occupancy plus Project conditions, the applicant proposes to
lengthen the northbound left -turn pocket at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard
and Rossmoor Center Way to 250, to eliminate to the queuing. (Final EIR, Section 4.4,
pp. 4.4 -24 through 4.4.-25.)
A -29
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Parrott 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
d. Reconfiguration of Rossmoor Center Way (Two Westbound
Lanes and One and a Half Eastbound Lanes)
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
applicant also proposes to widen Rossmoor Center Way between the internal driveway
and Seal Beach Boulevard in order to reduce westbound queuing at the intersection by
increasing the capacity for vehicles entering the Project site at Rossmoor Center
Way /Seal Beach Boulevard. The addition of a second westbound lane along Rossmoor
Center Way would reduce westbound (inbound) queue lengths to approximately 180
feet (from 200 feet) in the new westbound shared left -turn lane and approximately 64
feet in the new westbound right -tum lanes. The total queue in both lanes, 244 feet,
would fit within the total capacity of both lanes (460 feet). Although the restriction of the
eastbound lanes along Rossmoor Center Way is anticipated to lengthen eastbound
(outbound) queues, the widening of Rossmoor Center Way would improve existing
queuing conditions and avoid any new queuing conditions and the improvement would
not increase safety hazards. Impact would be less than significant. (Final EIR, Section
4.4, pp. 4.4 -25 through 4.4. -26.)
e. Pedestrian Movement
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
Project's effect on local traffic adjacent to pedestrians was evaluated by taking weekly
ADT counts in October 2016 for segments of St. Cloud Drive and Montecito Road
alongside anticipated Project traffic. The increases in daily traffic due to Project traffic
represent an increase of less than one percent at each of the roadway segments
measures, and as a result Project traffic would not alter existing traffic volumes or the
existing pedestrian experience in any noticeable way. Impact would be less than
significant. (Final EIR, Section 4.4, p. 4.4.-26.)
4. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access.
The proposed Project does not include any feature around the building that would
impede emergency access, nor would the Project result in substantial additional traffic
volumes that would increase the LOS and potentially impede emergency vehicle
movement. Impact would be less than significant. (Final EIR, Section 4.4, p. 4.4.-26.)
5. Cumulative traffic impacts would be less than significant.
As set out in the more expansive analysis contained in Section 4.4 of the Final EIR, the
applicant estimates that the proposed project will be completed by the end of 2018. In
order to present a near -tens 2018 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. In addition to the inclusion of an
ambient growth rate, anticipated traffic from nearby planned developments that may
utilize the study area roadway facilities by the time the project is planned to be built and
A -30
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
operational was considered in the analysis, based on information obtained from staff at
the neighboring City of Los Alamitos regarding anticipated developments that may
contribute traffic to study area facilities and traffic from the cumulative projects in Los
Alamitos cited above was included in the analysis. Based on this analysis, all study area
intersections and roadway segments are anticipated to operate at satisfactory LOS
(LOS D or better) under Project Completion Year (2018) with Full Occupancy
conditions, without and with the proposed health club. Cumulative traffic impacts would
be less than significant.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions in this Section P are fully discussed
in the Final EIR in Section 4.4 (pp. 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -26); Section 6.2 (p. 6 -3); Section
9.0 (pp. 9.0 -1 through 9.0 -28); Appendix A (Initial Study); Appendix E (Traffic Analysis
Health: Health Club within The Shops at Rossmoor); Appendix F (Orange County Traffic
Engineering Rossmoor Traffic Study); and Appendix G (Collision Report Summary,
Orange County Traffic Engineering Department).
O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Final EIR, Section 6.1 and
Appendix A)
Analysis of impacts related to utilities and service systems was
addressed in the Initial Study. No significant impacts related to
utilities and service systems would be associated with development
of the health club. There are no other projects in the immediate
vicinity that are proposed to be built in the near future; therefore,
the project would not contribute cumulatively to the exceedance of
wastewater treatment standards, the need to build new or
expanded wastewater facilities, the need to expand water supplies,
or the need to increase the capacity of landfills.
Support for these environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the Final EIR
in Section 6.1 (p. 6 -3); and Appendix A (Initial Study).
R. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS (Final EIR, Section 6.2)
The proposed health club project would generally serve the existing
population and is not the type of land use that would cause new
residents to move to the area. The surrounding neighborhood is
fully urbanized. Thus, the project would not create growth- inducing
effects.
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is further discussed in the Final EIR in
Section 6.1 (p. 6 -3).
W. ENERGY CONSERVATION (Final EIR, Section 6.3)
A -31
Resolution 17 -15
Certift'cation of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
The Project would not be wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary
because the Project would not increase energy demand over
typical construction and operating requirements.
CEQA requires that an EIR consider energy implications of project decisions by
requiring that EIRS include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed
project with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and
unnecessary consumption of energy. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21100(b)(3).) The
Final EIR assessed the short- and long -term energy demand of the proposed Project,
identified proposed and required conservation measures, and assessed the extent to
which the proposed Project would conserve energy.
As more fully discussed in the Final EIR, the Final EIR discussed the regulatory setting,
including the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB -350), CBC
including CALGREEN, short-term and long -tens energy demands from the construction
and operational activities of the proposed Project, and energy demands on mobile
sources, electricity and natural gas use, water and wastewater, and energy
conservation measures required under the CBC and energy - efficient features proposed
by the applicant.
The proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a new health club on
an existing parking lot within an established commercial center. The area in which the
project is located is urbanized and developed with residential land uses to the west and
north and commercial development to the south and east. Due to the Project's location,
it is likely people living in the area or visiting the area would be inclined to visit the
health club instead of travelling to a health club that may be farther away. Although the
Project would increase energy usage compared to current conditions, this energy would
not be wasteful or inefficient due to the building codes and standards the project would
comply with. Furthermore, as a new facility, many of the pieces of equipment located in
the proposed health club would be new higher energy efficient equipment, and as stated
above, many energy - efficient features would be designed into the building. Energy
demand for the project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
Support for this environmental impact conclusion is fully discussed in the Final EIR in
Section 6.3 (pp. 6 -6 through 6 -9).
VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated
to a Less Than Significant Level.
The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Noise. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of
the impacts in this section to a less than significant level.
The Planning Commission finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR
would reduce the Project's noise impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning
Commission adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in
KINIA
Resolution 17 -15
CerMcation or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 18-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the
Project, as discussed more fully in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Support for the following environmental impact conclusions are fully discussed in the
Final EIR, in Section 4.3 (pp. 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -13), Section 9.0 (pp. 9.1 through 9 -28),
Appendix A (Initial Study), Appendix D (Assessment of Environmental Noise: Rossmoor
Health Club Seal Beach), and Appendix H (Memo on Additional Long -Term Noise
Monitoring), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B). These
sources will be referenced in the discussion below.
A. NOISE (Final EIR, Sections 4.3 and 9.0 and Appendices A, D, and H)
1. The Project could create a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project due to a rooftop HVAC Unit Impact would be
less than significant with mitigation
Section 4.3, Noise, Impact 4.3.C, of the Final EIR determined that there would be a
significant impact from cumulative noise levels due to the operation of the Project's
thirteen (13) HVAC units located on the rooftop. Cumulative noise levels are calculated
to be 53 dBA at the nearest residential property line, which exceeds the Municipal Code
limit of 50 dBA. Thus, the rooftop units would potentially cause noise standard
exceedances by 3 dBA, which could have a significant impact on nearby residences.
This analysis is set forth in more detail in the Final EIR, Section 4.3, pp. 4.3 -11 through
4.3 -12.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
HVAC rooftop unit noise. Specifically, the following measure has been included to
ensure that the Project's potential HVAC rooftop noise impacts remain less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure Noise -1: Since HVAC rooftop unit noise levels
would exceed Municipal Code limits of 50 dBA, one of the three following
options—or any other comparable approach that will achieve the required
noise reduction —will be implemented by the project applicant. The project
applicant will be required to submit a plan to the City, prepared by an
acoustical engineer or otherwise qualified specialist, documenting that
HVAC rooftop units and associated mitigating features will achieve the
Municipal Code standard.
Mitigation Option 1. Install a screen or parapet around the HVAC
units. To be an effective noise barrier, the screen or parapet should
A -33
Resolution 17 -15
Certillcation or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
extend at least one foot above the tallest rooftop unit and be continuous at
the north and west edges of the health club building.
Mitigation Option 2. Utilize baf0es/silencers/attenuators. Each
rooftop unit will be fully enclosed with noise control devices located at air
ventilation to lessen the noise radiating from the equipment.
Mitigation Option 3. Install quieter HVAC units. Once specific HVAC
rooftop units are selected, sound data from their manufacturer can be
used to show that the Code limit of 50 dBA at nearby property lines will not
be exceeded.
The explanation of these mitigation measures is set forth in the Final EIR, Section 4.3,
pp. 4.3 -11 through 4.3 -12; and Appendix D, Section 3.44, pp. 13 -14.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed Project includes thirteen HVAC units to be located on the rooftop, with
one -half to be located on the western half of the building, and one -half to be located on
the eastern half. No screening is proposed for the HVAC units. Mitigation Measure
Noise -1 requires that the applicant apply at least one of the three listed mitigation
options so that the Project does not exceed the Municipal Code limit of 50 dBA. The
options include either an equipment screen or taller parapet on the roof,
baffles /silencers/attenuators on the equipment, or quieter equipment that can be shown
to achieve the requirement outlined in the mitigation measure.
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure, including all three
options, are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant HVAC
equipment noise impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed project that mitigate or avoid
the potentially significant noise impacts of the proposed project identified in the EIR.
Therefore, impacts related to noise exposures from the thirteen HVAC units would be
reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
2. The Project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project during Project construction. Impact
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Section 4.3, Noise, Impact 4.3.D, of the Final EIR determined that construction of the
proposed Project would generate temporary increased noise levels at the property line.
While construction activity would occur within the time periods established in the Noise
Ordinance, peaks in construction equipment work could be considered objectionable by
A -34
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Pamir 167
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
some residents in adjacent units. This analysis is set forth in more detail in the Final
EIR, Section 4.3, pp. 4.3 -12.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to
Project construction noise. Specifically, the following measure has been included to
ensure that the Project's impact on ambient noise levels during construction would be
less than significant.
Mitiaation Measure Noise -2: During construction, the
applicantideveloper shall employ the following standard practices for
mitigating construction noise:
• Implement a construction- related noise mitigation plan. This plan
would depict the location of construction equipment storage and
maintenance areas, and document methods to be employed to
minimize noise impacts on adjacent noise - sensitive land uses.
Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul
routes where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting
those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible,
the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land
uses or residential dwellings.
• Equip internal combustion engine - driven equipment with original
factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are
maintained in good condition.
• Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.
• Locate all stationary noise - generating equipment such as air
compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from
noise - sensitive land uses.
• Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary equipment
where feasible and available.
• Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would respond to
neighborhood complaints about construction noise by determining
the cause of the noise complaints, and require implementation of
reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site.
A -35
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
Additionally, construction activity will be limited to the hours
indicated in Table 4.3 -3.
The discussion of these mitigation measures are set forth in the Final EIR, Section 4.3,
pp. 4.3 -12 through 4.3 -13; Table 4.3 -3, pp. 4.3 -7 through 4.3 -8; and Appendix D,
Section 3.5, pp. 14 -15.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measure Noise -2 contains standard practices to mitigation construction noise
during construction of the Project, based on City of Seal Beach General Plan
requirements for construction and standard practices for acoustical control. These
mitigation measures are in addition to the time limits on construction activity in the Seal
Beach Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to specified hours on weekdays
and Saturdays, and excludes Sundays. With implementation of these construction
practices during construction, impacts related to construction noise impacts would be
reduced to less than significant.
The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measures are feasible, are
adopted, and will reduce the potentially significant noise impacts of the proposed project
to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant noise impacts of the
proposed project identified in the EIR.
VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Sianificant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation.
Based on the analysis set forth in Section 4 of the Final EIR, with regard to air quality,
greenhouse gases, noise, and traffic and transportation, the Project would not create
any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
As set forth in the more expansive discussion in Section 4 of the Final EIR, the Initial
Study (Appendix A), all technical studies and analyses including the air quality, traffic
and noise reports (Appendices C through H), and the Responses to Comments (Section
9.0 of the Final EIR), the Project could have only two potentially significant noise
impacts, and those impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation
— HVAC rooftop noise and temporary construction noise. All other impacts of the Project
would be less than significanttno impact without mitigation, including with respect to
aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions. hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise,
population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic and transportation, and
utilities and service systems.
A -36
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
VIII. Project Alternatives.
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The
lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and
therefore merit in -depth consideration, and which are infeasible. Analysis of potential
alternatives includes an assessment of each alternative's ability to (i) feasibly attain the
basic project objectives while (ii) avoiding or reducing one or more of the project's
significant effects. Under CEQA, an EIR must discuss several alternatives to the
proposed project in order to present a reasonable range of alternatives.
The altematives evaluated included Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative; and
Alternative 2 – Alternative Location at the Shops at Rossmoor Shopping Center. These
two alternatives are discussed below, including a comparison of the impacts and the
basis for rejecting each alternative. Each alternative's environmental impacts are
considered and analyzed, along with an analysis whether it achieves the Project
Objectives as follows:
1. To expand the square footage and uses within the center consistent with
the center's current General Plan and zoning designations.
2. To add a use to the center in a new structure that will be located within the
existing underutilized parking field, but will maintain the center's
compliance with all applicable parking requirements.
3. To add a use which will not detract from the overall experience of existing
tenants by:
a. Disrupting existing parking and shopping patterns that are
important to existing tenants in the center; or
b. Diminishing or obscuring exposure of existing center business to
traffic along Seal Beach Boulevard.
4. To add a use which will not displace existing uses or require the
demolition of existing leasable space, thus preserving existing lease and
sales tax revenue opportunities.
5. To add a use for which potential environmental impacts, particularly those
related to traffic and noise, can be mitigated to a level of insignificance so
as not to adversely impact current tenants and adjacent neighbors.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1 —NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE (Final EIR, Sections
5.0 and 9.0, and Appendix A)
Summary of Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that a "No Project" alternative and its
impacts be evaluated in an EIR. The analysis of the No Project alternative must discuss
the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. The comparison is that of
the proposed project versus what can reasonably be expected to occur on the
A -37
Resolution 17 -15
Certification or Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
properties should the proposed project not be approved. The analysis allows decision -
makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not
approving the project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B).)
The CEQA Guidelines also provide that when, as in the context of this Project, the
proposed project is "a development project on identifiable property," the "No Project'
alternative must address "predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some
other project," as opposed to analyzing "a set of artificial assumptions that would be
required to preserve the existing physical environment." (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(3)(B).) The lead agency must analyze the impacts of the No Project
alternative by projecting what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with
available infrastructure and community services.
The proposed Project would accomplish the Project Objectives listed above. The
Project is consistent with the General Commercial land use and zoning designations of
the City, and would therefore expand the square footage and uses within the center
consistent with the center's current General Plan and zoning designations. The
shopping center has adequate services and utilities to serve the Project. As proposed,
the Project would add a use to the center in a new structure that will be located within
the existing underutilized parking field, while maintaining the center's compliance with
all applicable parking requirements. The Project would add a use which would not
detract from the overall experience of existing tenants because the Project would not
disrupt existing parking and shopping patterns that are important to existing tenants in
the center; and the Project would not diminish or obscure exposure of existing center
business to traffic along Seal Beach Boulevard. The Project would add a use that would
not displace existing uses or require the demolition of existing leasable space, thus
preserving existing lease and sales tax revenue opportunities.
The Project would also not result in unmitigated significant impacts with implementation
of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. By lengthening the north -bound left -turn lane from Seal Beach Boulevard onto
Rossmoor Center Way, and widening Rossmoor Center Way to accommodate a left -
hand turning lane into the fitness club parking lot, the Project would thus remedy in full
the existing queuing deficiency on northbound Seal Beach Boulevard.
Under Alternative 1, the fitness club would not be built. However, the Planning
Commission finds that in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B), if
the proposed Project were not built, it is predictable that another project would take its
place on the same site. Under this analysis, the "No Project" alternative contemplates
development of the Project site based on the applicable existing General Plan land use
designation and zoning because the applicant is the owner of the shopping center, and
the Project Objectives include expanding the uses within the shopping center and
building out the center in accordance with its existing General Commercial zoning,
existing adequate services and utilities, compliance with all parking requirements, and
consistency with the applicant's detailed marketing and sales analyses. Under the
A -38
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final OR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
existing General Plan and zoning designations, numerous other general commercial
uses could be built on the site, either as permitted uses or as uses subject to a
Conditional Use Permit. Uses permitted as a matter of right include retail sales
businesses, coffee house, and professional offices. Conditional permitted uses include
full- service restaurants with alcohol sales, building materials sales, and day care
centers.
2. Reasons for Reiectina Alternative 1
With regard to air quality impacts, the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds and would not result in significant air quality impacts. The
Project would also not result in direct or indirect GHG emissions that would have a
significant effect on the environment or result in cumulatively considerable GHG
impacts. Air quality impacts and GHG impacts from other commercial land uses could
be greater or less than the proposed fitness center, but the EIR concludes that other
general commercial land uses would likely not exceed SCAQMD air quality thresholds
or GHG emissions plans, policies or regulations, and would not therefore be preferable
to the proposed Project.
The Final EIR identified two potential noise impacts from the Project, noise from
operation of the HVAC units, and temporary construction noise, and identified mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts to less- than - significant levels. Under the "No Project"
alternative, other commercial land uses allowed under the zoning would also have an
HVAC system, which would have to comply with City noise standards, and
consequently there is no basis to assume the impacts of other commercial land uses
would be less significant than those identified and mitigated for the proposed Project.
One of the primary concerns raised by commenters to the proposed health club is traffic
impacts. The Final EIR found that traffic impacts from the Project would be less than
significant. However, under the "No Project" alternative, alternative commercial uses
allowed under the existing zoning and land use designations, such as banks,
coffeehouses /dessert shops, retail sales, building materials and services, daycare
centers, full- service restaurants, home improvement sales and service, and
hospitalstclinics, would generate more traffic trips per peak hour than the proposed
Project. (Final EIR, Section 5.0, pp. 5 -2 through 5 -3; Appendices E, F, and G) In
addition,
In addition, as noted, the Project includes proposed improvements on Seal Beach
Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way to remedy the existing queuing deficiency at that
intersection. Those improvements are not required as traffic mitigation under the EIR,
but were incorporated by the applicant as part of the Project itself, and include the
extension of the north -bound left -turn lane on Seal Beach Boulevard by 145 feet and the
widening of the westbound turning lane on Rossmoor Center Drive. If the Project site
were left in its existing condition, these proposed improvements to remedy the existing
queuing deficiencies on Rossmoor Center Way and Seal Beach Boulevard might not be
IMM
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Pemrit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
built. For this reason, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Project
represents an environmentally superior alternative to the No Project alternative.
The "No Project" alternative (Alternative 1) also does not feasibly accomplish most or all
of the Project Objectives, because it does not eliminate the queuing deficiency, or meet
the applicant's goals to develop a fitness club based on detailed marketing and siting
analyses.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Planning Commission finds that Alternative 1
would not fully meet the Project Objectives; it is not the environmentally superior
alternative; and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The Planning
Commission also finds that each of the reasons set forth herein would be an
independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other
reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AT THE SHOPS AT
ROSSMOOR SHOPPING CENTER (Final EIR, Sections 5.0 and 9.0,
and Appendix A)
Summary of Alternative
The "Alternative Location at The Shops at Rossmoor" atemative (Alternative 2)
evaluated the proposed relocation of the Project to a vacant tenant space in the
shopping center that was recently occupied by an 8,827- square -foot Marie Callender's
Restaurant. Alternative 2 would require demolition of the existing single -story restaurant
building and its replacement with a health club building more than three times the
restaurant's square footage. Primary access could come from Seal Beach Boulevard at
Towne Center Drive.
2. Reasons for Re acting Alternative 2
With regard to air quality impacts, the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds and would not result in significant air quality impacts. The
Project would also not result in direct or indirect GHG emissions that would have a
significant effect on the environment or result in cumulatively considerable GHG
impacts. Under Alternative 2, if the proposed fitness club were built in the alternative
restaurant location, into a structure of a similar size and design, air quality impacts and
GHG impacts from other commercial land uses might also be less than significant.
However, building demolition would result in greater air quality emissions. CEQA review
would be required to evaluate site - specific and vicinity air quality emissions impacts and
GHG impacts of the proposed use.
With respect to noise, Alternative 2 would remove the potential that noise associated
with HVAC equipment would exceed City standards at the residential property line.
However, moving the project to another location might involve demolition of existing
A-40
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beech Boulevard
structures or loss of convenient parking to avoid the same noise impact as would be
fully mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures for the Project.
Alternative 2 could redirect additional traffic associated with the health club from
Rossmoor Center Way to Towne Center Drive if the health center were in the southern
portion of the shopping center. However, based on the environmental analysis, traffic
impacts were found not to be significant, and as such, selection of Alternative 2 would
not be necessary to avoid or reduce a significant environmental effect of the proposed
fitness center at that intersection. Also, Alternative 2 might result in a minor reduction in
traffic on Montecito Road, but it would not have a materially different effect on that traffic
because the traffic analysis found that the Project's contribution to the various segments
of Montecito Road was less than 1% of the total Montecito Road traffic. For this
additional reason, this alternative location would not be needed to, and would not, avoid
or substantially lessen an identified significant adverse traffic impact.
Alternative 2 could potentially require improvements to the existing left-tum lane from
Seal Beach Boulevard into the shopping center to address the existing queuing
deficiencies, but this alternative would only meet one of the Project Objectives (to
expand the center square footage consistent with existing entitlements), but would not
satisfy any other Project Objectives because it would add additional environmental
considerations that would require evaluation, including noise and dust and disruption of
immediately adjacent traffic from the building demolition and new construction. The
relocation of the fitness club to the restaurant site would also reduce presently available
customer parking located near other existing retail businesses, which would force
patrons of those other to use less convenient parking in the rear of the center. The
construction of the fitness club, with its increased height, may also reduce the ability of
drivers to identify other businesses in the shopping center. Altemative 2 also does not
offer any clear environmental benefits over the proposed Project.
Alternative 2 would also result in a loss of sales revenue opportunity to the City,
because it would replace a highly visible retail /restaurant site with a fitness center that
would not generate significant taxable sales.
For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission finds that Alternative 2 would not
meet any of the Project Objectives. The Planning Commission hereby finds that each of
the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2,
and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2.
C. THE FINAL EIR CONSIDERED A REASONABLE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES.
CEQA requires that an EIR discuss a reasonable range of alternatives, which must
include the range of potential alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially
lessen one or more of the significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c).)
An alternative may be eliminated from detailed consideration in an EIR due to (i) failure
A-41
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; or (iii) inability to avoid
significant environmental impacts. (CEOA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c).)
During preparation of the EIR, two other alternatives were eliminated from consideration
as infeasible. These alternatives included the following.
1. The "Additional Inbound Access Point" Alternative
This alternative included construction of an inbound -only driveway on Seal Beach
Boulevard south of Rossmoor Center Way near the existing Subway restaurant. This
alternative was proposed by some commenter on the basis that it would improve the
westbound queuing on the segment of Rossmoor Center Way by decreasing the
number of vehicles using Rossmoor Center Way.
In examining this alternative, in discussions with City staff and the City's transportation
consultant, it was determined that the City would require a 120 -foot deceleration lane on
Seal Beach Boulevard to allow the new driveway into the center. It was also determined
that this alternative was infeasible because:
• Adding a deceleration lane could pose considerable conflicts with existing public
utilities which would render this option financially infeasible;
• A new driveway would result in a reduction of onsite parking spaces;
• Several of the operating tenants will have to grant their approval for the design;
and
• The utilization of the new driveway is less than 50 inbound peak hour vehicles.
The Planning Commission concurs that this alternative would not be feasible, and that
the Project which includes the Rossmoor Center Way widening is feasible and the
preferred access improvement aftemative.
2. "Off -Site Alternative'
The "Off -Site Alternative" included placing the Project at an alternative location in the
City outside of the Shops at Rossmoor. This alternative was rejected as not meeting
the Project Objectives of the applicant. The applicant is the property owner of the Shops
at Rossmoor, and the Project Objectives include expanding the uses at the Shops at
Rossmoor shopping center, and building out the shopping center in accordance with the
City's adopted land use entitlements for the center.
The Planning Commission finds that this alternative was properly rejected under CECA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) on the basis that this alternative would not meet the
Project Objectives.
A-42
Resolution 17 -15
Certification of Final EIR for
Conditional Use Permit 16-7
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Measures pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
LA Fitness Health Club
This Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines, which state the following:
In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in
the EIR are implemented, the public agency [the City of Seal Beach] shall adopt
a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the
project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid sign"fiicent
environmental effects. ( §15097(a))
The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation,
report on mitigation, or both. "Reporting" generally consists of a written
compliance review that is presented to the decision- making body or authorized
staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project
implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. "Monitoring" is
generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no
clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited
to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of
both. ( §15097 (c))
Table 1, on the next page, lists the impacts, mitigation measures, and timing of and
responsibility for implementing the mitigation measures related to the LA Fitness Health Club.
The mitigation measures listed here will be implemented by the Applicant/Developer and
approved by the City of Seal Beach, or by its appointee. The Applicant will report completion of
mitigation implementation to the City of Seal Beach (Lead Agency).
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a)(2), "Mitigation measures must be fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally- binding instruments. In the
case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures
can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design." Therefore, all mitigation
measures as listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the City of Seal Beach when the project is
approved.
LA Fitness Health Club
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Plan —June 2017
City of Seal Beach
��
���
�
�
�.
|!
.
i
k` �
<
■
ra
-
! \
!f ! $
!
!lam
} §k#!!
���
lkk- /| \k
|!_r
M9 E
s_f
!
!]E
! f!!§2
� °
I
- M
-
{!
}
\_ �-
\
- !
! $';
b C.
,
E
|
k �
- !
| -
[l 4
- -
-t!
__ --
:
■
!
0 —10 \k= t
j�
_)! §�/
��)
2
/!!t;$|!!
- _
-)k)#
)\
/§ §j\)
{E2o /k
0-
0-
_
d
®f!! «!�!!!
0. -0
!! ;! |kf
_
- !! |I]r]y!�
_
- - -`-
■
■■
M M
so..a
k72 q'a=
RO
—
!
\ /■k�!)!!
{ ;■
/ƒ).
-
o
)] { §
-
j \ \ \ \
/ }/ }/\
mo
�
�|
o®
k
!aa
�f!!
!
!f !f
!
�!
!\|{2
._
!$!
;!|)k §f
!.!
§• - °,
=e 44
��
„ {!!
|a0
s-
„ =!f
!
!<S.c &]|
!
It
;!
1..,�
_
q 2 `-
k
w
2
!! �{ §)
�-
|
�{
-- , .,#i
)f■
|,I |k
--
) / { /� /
|i
\{ k \ {� /j % {�\)
®k.
)k
°
{�k��
)k�) {)|/
f |ƒ]!! |!4 |m C'C
;•
m- :m -!
®•.0Z
a2.06E
!2
!
a
# - -.
G !; | §E
,
:.
I+- |] |§
k/k k- �iM
!
!!§f!!f]
;!!{
!!__ -
`\
.
k)k \5�f ; ;; !!!!!2
{ |!l §!(!
7!/)|
-
;� \ §
+k!��!!```!
_
.�.;
!
;2; ■�{7k ■ ;
9«
- °
l
'
k)k §)
/ /))ƒfk!{!
a
;B.
,.,;f,
§f§!0.
pEm §
§!!!
|!
;
.
.
. .
.
.
_.L
#
!
!2 C
!
|
0
`
|
:` !&/ k,,C
.,i ,
C
|t 05AOE
b «{!I|
Z! =130
82
mo
�