HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem ISEA( @F
J v, 90Zr:
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 11, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Crystal Landavazo, Interim Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT (CUP 16 -7), AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP) AND THE CERTIFICATION OF AN ASSOCIATED
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) TO
CONSTRUCT A 37,000 SQ. FT. FITNESS CLUB (FITNESS
CENTER) AT 12411 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
That the City Council hold a de novo hearing regarding CUP 16 -7 and the associated
Final Environmental Impact Report to construct a 37,000 sq. ft. fitness club, and, after
considering all evidence and testimony presented, (i) adopt Resolution No. 6767
denying the appeal and approving the Planning Commission's certification of the
associated Final Environmental Impact Report; and (ii) adopt Resolution No. 6768
granting the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of CUP 16 -7 and approving
CUP 16 -7, for development of the Project.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
On June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on proposed
CUP 16 -7 and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) which
would allow for the construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. fitness club (the Project) to be located
at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard in the Shops at Rossmoor (the subject property).
Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission certified the Final EIR for the
Project and approved a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to
Resolution No. 17 -15. The Commission also voted to deny CUP 16 -7 and directed staff
to prepare and bring back a resolution of denial to the Commission. Subsequently, on
July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 17 -16, denying CUP
16 -7. On July 5, 2017, an appeal was filed by nearby residents to the Planning
Commission's decision certifying the Final EIR, and on July 27, 2017, the applicant also
appealed the Commission's decision denying CUP 16 -7.
Agenda Item I
The grounds for the appeal of Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR are
set out in a letter submitted by the resident appellants and in their appeal (Attachment
C). Their letter states, "the Planning Commission should not have certified the EIR, for
all of the reasons set forth in the extended testimony of the citizens of Seal Beach and
Rossmoor" and provided a copy of a power point presentation prepared by the Coalition
Against LA Fitness. The letter also indicates that the daily trips to the proposed fitness
center would be 2 -3 times higher than the EIR projected, which the appellant
determined would cause increased traffic, air quality, and noise impacts.
The applicant's grounds for appeal of the denial of CUP 16 -7 are set out in its appeal
(Attachment D), and states that the Planning Commission's determination that the
project will not be compatible and will be detrimental to surrounding uses was at odds
with the certified EIR which "provides substantial evidence to support the CUP findings."
The applicant explained that the Findings could be supported by the EIR which
specified "health and fitness clubs are not noise - generating land uses," and the
proposed Rossmoor Way widening would improve existing conditions not increase
safety hazards.
Project Overview:
The proposed Project site area is currently used as parking for the Shops at Rossmoor.
The existing shopping center is approximately 35.45 acres or 1,544,202 square -feet in
gross area and developed with approximately 376,029 square feet of gross building
area. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south and west, with
commercial uses to the east across Seal Beach Boulevard.
Marty Potts (Project applicant) submitted a Conditional Use Permit application (CUP 16-
7) to construct a single -story fitness club comprising 37,000 square feet of floor space
along the rear of the Shops at Rossmoor. Facilities in the fitness club may include free
weights, circuit training, a pool, a basketball court, separate rooms for aerobics and
spinning, a personal training room, men's and women's showers and lockers, a hot
yoga studio, a physical therapy room, and a children's area.
The General Plan designates the subject property as Commercial - General and it is
located in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The Seal Beach Municipal
Code, Table 11.2.10.010, permits large scale commercial recreation uses subject to
approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Large scale recreational uses such as fitness
clubs, fitness centers, swimming pools and tennis centers that are larger than 20,000
square feet of building area require a CUP.
Pursuant to Section 1.20.010 of the Municipal Code, appeals of Planning Commission
decisions to the City Council are heard de novo. This means that the City Council must
independently hear and consider the evidence in a new hearing and apply the same
decision - making criteria that the Planning Commission did when deciding whether to
certify the Final EIR and approve CUP 16 -7.
Page 2
In order to certify the Final EIR, the Planning Commission was required to make certain
findings in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(14 Cal. Code Reg. 15000 et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines). These findings include
identification of environmental impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures, and
findings that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project to avoid or
substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These same findings must be
made by the City Council on this appeal.
In order to approve a CUP, the Planning Commission was required to make certain
findings with regard to the proposed Project. These findings, as required by Municipal
Code Section 11.5.20.020.A, generally include determining the proposal is consistent
with the General Plan, the use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with
the Municipal Code, the site is physically adequate for the proposed use, the proposed
use will be compatible with and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood,
and the proposed use will not be detrimental to persons residing or working in the
vicinity. These same findings must be made by the City Council on this appeal.
For reasons stated below and in the proposed resolutions of approval (Attachments A
and B), staff recommends that required findings can be made in this case, and that the
Planning Commission did so for the certification of the Final EIR but did not for the CUP.
As such, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal with respect to
certification of the Final EIR, and grant the appeal with respect to denial of the
conditional use permit and approve CUP 16 -7.
Land Use and Zoning Requirements:
The proposed 37,000 square feet fitness club complies with the applicable provisions of
the Municipal.Code and the General Plan. The proposed fitness club complies with the
parking, setback, height, and landscape requirements of the Seal Beach Municipal
Code. The use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses and the
Commercial General zoning designation, and is compatible with other surrounding uses
in the neighborhood in that, as conditioned, the fitness center use is not functionally
different than any other commercial use in the commercial center that has operated
compatibly with surrounding uses for many years. The improvements are consistent
with the General Plan as it encourages architectural diversity in the commercial areas
while stimulating growth. The construction and operation of the fitness club will improve
the mix of uses and provide a recreational facility as encouraged by the General Plan.
The site is physically adequate for the type, density, and intensity of the use being
proposed as it is over 100 feet from any residential unit, meets all the requirements and
thresholds for a development of this kind, and is a commercial use that is located within
a commercial zoning designation. The proposed site enhancements, conditions and
mitigation measures will reduce construction noise during construction and the fitness
club will operate within set operating hours.
The traffic analysis (Appendix E of the EIR) found that under existing conditions without
the Project, the existing northbound left -turn lane on Seal Beach Boulevard onto
Page 3
Rossmoor Center Way experiences queuing deficiencies during periods of peak
demand. The Project description includes a reconfiguration of the existing northbound
left -turn lane which will extend that lane by 145 feet. 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
Sprouts parking lot, reducing delays to through traffic travelling westbound on
Rossmoor Center Way.
The traffic analysis was completed in compliance with the City of Seal Beach standards
for preparation of a Traffic Analysis. The City's standard utilizes the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual for trip generation. It is
nationally accepted data that is used by various agencies as an industry standard to
determine common trip generation rates for common land uses. In the specific case of
the proposed health club, the ITE Trip Generation Manual uses six samples for a
Fitness Center to determine the trip generation used in the project's traffic analysis.
This project proposes a fitness facility, which is a typical land use found nationwide; the
project does not propose special land uses that have not been surveyed to determine
trip generation rates.
The Project applicant submitted an application for the large scale commercial recreation
use on November 22, 2016. While the application was under review, the Project
applicant conducted independent meetings to inform the community of the pending
application. City staff did not organize or attend the meetings while conducting its
impartial review of the application.
Parking Calculations:
The parking calculations for the proposed building and existing building and uses are
per Section 11.4.20.015.A.1 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Type of Use
Floor Area (SF)
Parking Ratio
Space per Square
Footage
Number of
Spaces
Required
Retail
328,753
1/300
1096
Pac Dental
5,000
1/200
25
Restaurant Pads
27,300
1/100
273
In -line Restaurants
12,188
1/100
122
UnoCal Gas Station
2,788
1/250
11
Proposed Fitness Club
37,000
1/300
124
Total
413,029
1,651
Number of Parking Spaces Provided
1,981
The existing site configuration provides adequate on -site parking for the current uses,
and the reconfiguration of the parking lot in the area where fitness center is proposed
Page 4
will continue to allow for a surplus of, parking on -site. The subject site will continue to
comply with Seal Beach Municipal Code, Section 11.4.20.015, which requires shared
parking count with all the current uses and the proposed fitness center to be 1,651
spaces and the site with the reconfiguration is proposed to contain 1,981 parking
spaces. This is a surplus of 330 parking spaces. The proposed fitness center is parked
at a ratio of 1 parking space per 300 square feet of building area. The gross floor area
of the fitness center is 37,000 and will require 124 parking spaces. The area of the
shopping center where the proposed building is located is proposed to contain 405
parking spaces.
In addition to reconfiguring the parking stalls the Project site plan includes 16,795
square feet of ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the health club and
within parking lot planters.
The shopping center management has allowed residents from nearby residential
developments to use portions of the shopping center parking lot for overnight parking of
their personal vehicles. Some commenters have expressed concern that the Project
may affect the residents' ability to continue to park in the center overnight. Overnight
parking is not part of the Project, as the project does not propose to address in any way
the permission granted by the center's management for overnight resident parking, or
for the City to exercise any discretion in connection with overnight resident parking. The
permitted overnight use of the shopping center parking lot remains in the sole discretion
of the shopping center management, and is independent of any decision by the City
related to the Project.
Architecturally (see attached elevations), the proposed single -story commercial building
would consist of a painted concrete tilt -up wall system accented with a prefabricated
metal panel shell finish system. The entryway would consist of anodized aluminum.
Painted plaster and simulated wood paneling would also be used on the building
exterior. The building would have a stepped massing from 25 feet in height at the side
and rear to 28 feet at the entryway to 35 feet at the highest point of the parapet holding
an illuminated sign on the south side elevation. The molding along the top of the
building and arcade features would be finished with decorative cornices. Finally, images
portraying individuals engaging in physical fitness activities are proposed to be placed
on the rear and side building elevations. The subject site will continue to comply with
Seal Beach Municipal Code, Table 11.2.10.015, which provides Development
Standards for the General Commercial (GC) zoned area. The applicant requested
approval to operate the fitness center which could provide membership -based fitness
services, including access to exercise equipment, group fitness classes, and personal
fitness training seven days a week. Hours of operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
Concerns regarding security have been expressed regarding the Project both on the
interior of the business as well as the parking area. Staff asked the police department
to reach out to other jurisdictions to determine what issues they are having if any with
health clubs in their jurisdictions. The same issues that were expressed to the city were
Page 5
also expressed by the other jurisdictions. These issues included car burglaries, auto
theft, theft within the locker rooms and vandalism. The Seal Beach Police provided
eight (8) conditions the applicant would need to adhere to in order to operate this type of
business.
Final Environmental Impact Report:
The proposed Conditional Use Permit is a "project" subject to environmental review
under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
On January 4, 2017, City Staff, in conjunction with the environmental consultant firm of
MIG, Inc., completed an Initial Study which found that the Project would have no impact
or less than significant impact on all of the following environmental impact categories:
aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population
and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The City
thereafter issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the Initial Study (IS) (collectively
the NOP /IS) indicating the City's intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
based upon findings of the Initial Study.
The City distributed the NOP /IS to the State Office of Planning and Research ( "OPR "),
responsible agencies and other interested parties, and circulated the NOP /IS for public
comment for a 30 -day public review period extending from January 4, 2017 through
February 3, 2017, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a) and 15375. The City
also made the NOP /IS available for public review on the City's website at
www.sealbeachca.ciov 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.
During the public comment period on the NOP /IS, the City received comments from four
public agencies, the O.C. Public Works / O.C. Development Services /Planning Division,
the Native American Heritage Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and the Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The City
also received comments from members of the public.
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 201 701 1 033) (Draft EIR) was prepared pursuant to Section
21080(d) of the Public Resources Code to evaluate the impacts of the Project on the
following environmental impact categories: air quality, greenhouse gas, noise and traffic
and transportation. The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed Project would also result
in no impact or less than significant impacts, and do not require mitigation, in the
following three environmental impact categories: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Traffic and Transportation. With respect to noise impacts, the Draft EIR concluded that
the proposed Project would result in potentially significant noise impacts, but that with
the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, the potentially
significant noise impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced below a level of
i..-
insignificance. All potentially significant impacts were mitigated, and no significant
impacts were identified in the Draft EIR.
In addition, preparation of a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was required pursuant to the
City's policies for new projects. The TIA was thoroughly reviewed by the City
Engineer/Traffic Engineer, and after several revisions the TIA was accepted by the City
Engineer/Traffic Engineer as a complete traffic analysis. The TIA was incorporated as
Appendix E to the EIR.
In accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was published
in the Sun Newspaper on March 9, 2017, and the NOA 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 NOA 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 24, 2017. Copies of the NOA and Draft
EIR were 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.
During the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the City of Seal Beach received
comments from three public agencies, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA),
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and also received written comments from members of the public..
In accordance with SBMC Section 3.10.005, the Draft EIR was also presented to the
Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) at a duly- noticed public meeting held on
April 5, 2017 during the required public comment period from March 9, 2017 to April 24,
2017. SBMC Section 3.10.005 authorizes the EQCB to make recommendations on
environmental matters, but does not allow the EQCB to make decisions regarding
projects. The Zoning Code also provides that the EQCB should receive public
comments and provide comments to the approving authority:
"F. Public Notice of Environmental Determination. If the director or environmental
review coordinator has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment, he or she shall prepare a negative declaration for public
review in conformance with the requirements of CEQA and applicable state and city
environmental review guidelines. If the applicant has agreed to incorporate mitigation
measures in order to reduce environmental impacts to a point of insignificance, the
director or environmental review coordinator shall prepare a mitigated negative
declaration for public review. The director or environmental review coordinator shall
provide public notice of the proposed environmental determination at the same time and
in the same manner required for the underlying permit in accordance with Chapter 5.10:
General Procedures.
Page 7
The Environmental Quality Control Board shall conduct a public meeting during the
public review period to receive public comments and to provide comments on the
draft negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and shall forward all
comments to the approving authority for consideration as part of any subsequent public
hearings on the draft negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration and
accompanying discretionary land use entitlement applications." (Emphasis added.)
Staff complied with the Seal Beach Municipal Code regarding the EQCB procedures at
the public meeting held on April 5, 2017. During the EQCB meeting, staff presented the
Project to the EQCB and the EQCB received public testimony. Additionally, the
environmental consultant, MIG, along with the traffic engineer for the developer, Donson
Liu, of LSA, addressed questions from the public and EQCB. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the EQCB identified four concerns that the environmental document should
address, which are as follows:
1. Evaluate HVAC (heating, ventilation & air conditioning) units and the potential to
locate them as far away from residences as possible.
2. Evaluate the existing Rossmoor Park Association vehicle gate that exists on
Rossmoor Center Way and its proximity and potential impact to the four way stop
at Rossmoor Center Way and an internal driveway adjacent to Sprouts and Pei
Wei.
3. Requested clarification and further discussion of sample size used for data
collection, along with analysis to determine if other factors such as daylight
savings time affected the data collection.
4. Requested a scaled rendering of the northbound left -hand turn lane extension on
Seal Beach Boulevard.
Staff forwarded the EQCB's comments to the environmental consultant for response in
conjunction with preparation of response to all other comments received on the Draft
EIR and preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The EQCB's
comments are included and referenced in the application tables and pages found in the
Final EIR as follows.
1. Evaluate HVAC (heating, ventilation & air conditioning) units and the potential to
locate them as far away from residences as possible. — Seal Beach Municipal
Code Section 7.15.035 Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning Equipment,
requires that no building permit will be issued for the installation of heating,
venting or air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in or adjacent to residential areas if
the noise produced by the HVAC equipment exceeds an A- weighted exterior
sound pressure level of 50 dBA. All HVAC equipment must be reviewed by
Planning staff and approved, proving that they meet these requirements prior to a
permit being issue. Many options are available to reduce the noise and Planning
staff can require any of these to be implemented to reduce the decibel level
below the 50 dBA.
2. Evaluate the existing Rossmoor Park Association vehicle gate that exists on
Rossmoor Center Way and its proximity and potential impact to the four way stop
at Rossmoor Center Way and an internal driveway adjacent to Sprouts and Pei
Wei. - As set forth in Chapter 9.0, at page 9 -22 of the Final EIR Response to
Comments Response 4, a Rossmoor Park Gate 1 Exit Only Driveway
Analysis was performed by LSA based on count data taken in May and
October of 2016 at the driveway and along Rossmoor Center Way adjacent
to the Sprouts and Pei Wei four way stop consistent with the methodology
used for all other study intersections in the TIA. The project Traffic Report
used the standard approach outlined in the City's traffic impact analysis
guidelines, which reflect industry standards. Traffic data is collected for typical
conditions during a 24 -hour period and during the weekday and Saturday peak
hours. This data showed vehicles using the Gate 1 driveway to exit the
Rossmoor Park Association Condominiums should not be blocked by the peak
period queuing on Rossmoor Center Way because the distance between Gate 1
and the Sprouts /Pei Wei driveway is approximately 120 feet, or 32 feet more than
the anticipated peak period queuing. It should be noted that the data collected
for the LA Fitness project is comparable to the data collected by the County for
the Rossmoor Traffic Study. Additionally, the analysis shown on page 9 -22
and 9 -23, found that the driveway is anticipated to continue operating at
acceptable LOS B or better during all three analysis peak hours under Future
(2035) General Plan Buildout with Project conditions. A queuing analysis of
eastbound queues at the Sprouts and Pei Wei four way stop was also conducted
and found that queued vehicles are not anticipated to back up to where the
Rossmoor Park Association vehicle gate is located. The peak hour operations
and queues at the Rossmoor Park Association driveway during the peak period
traffic conditions analyzed in the TIA are within City standards of acceptability
and do not meet traffic impact thresholds.
3. Requested clarification and further discussion of sample size used for data
collection, along with analysis to determine if other factors such as daylight
savings time affected the data collection. — As set forth on Page 9 -27 of the
Final EIR Response to Comments Response, Appendix H Noise Study was
performed from April 14 to April 21, 2017 to determine if the original sample size
taken on a date affected by daylight savings time had an effect on the data
collection. Veneklasen Associates who conducted the monitoring found that the
new data was similar as the original findings.
4. Requested a scaled rendering of the northbound left -hand turn lane extension on
Seal Beach Boulevard. — The applicant has provided a scaled rendering of the
northbound left -hand turn lane extension and is included with the project set of
plans. Plans for the northbound left -hand turn lane are included in the Plan set
provided with the site plan and floor plans.
After the public review period, the City with the assistance of MIG prepared responses
to all comments received on the Draft EIR from members of the public, the other public
Page 9
agencies, and the EQCB, and then circulated to the public agencies, in accordance with
Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15091(d) require the City
to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for
which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures. With respect to noise impacts, the Final EIR identified mitigation
measures that will mitigate any or all significant noise impacts to a level of
insignificance, which have been incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program setting forth mitigation measures imposed to ensure that the Project applicant
complies with all provisions or changes adopted as mitigation measures during
implementation of the Project. Those mitigation measures are set forth on pages ES -1
through ES -3 (Table ES -1, Environmental Impact Summary) and pages 4.3 -12 through
4.3 -13 of Chapter 4.3 of the Final EIR. These mitigation measures include the following:
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.
a. Mitigation Option 1. Install a screen or parapet around the HVAC units. To be
an effective noise barrier, the screen or parapet should extend at least one foot
above the tallest rooftop unit and be continuous at the north and west edges of
the health club building.
b. Mitigation Option 2. Utilize baffles /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.
c. 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.
Mitigation Measure Noise -2.
During construction, the applicant/developer shall employ the following standard
practices for mitigating construction noise:
a. 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
Page 10
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.
b. Equip internal combustion engine- driven equipment with original factory (or
equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition.
c. Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
d. Locate all stationary noise - generating equipment such as air compressors and
portable generators as far as practicable from noise - sensitive land uses.
e. Utilize "quiet' air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and
available.
f. 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.
The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachments K and L),
were released to the public on June 9, 2017. The Final EIR is comprised of the NOP /IS,
all written comments received from members of the public and other public agencies in
response to the NOP /IS, all written comments submitted in response to the NOA and
the Draft EIR submitted by other public agencies, members of the public and the EQCB
during the public review period, and the responses to all comments, together with the
Draft EIR.
If the City Council certifies the Final EIR, any mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR that will mitigate any or all significant adverse impacts to a level of insignificance,
the City Council must also approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
containing those mitigation measures. In addition, if the City Council decides to approve
the Conditional Use Permit, all of the above - described mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be incorporated
into the Project conditions of approval.
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report:
The first task for the City Council is to consider the Final EIR, including Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and determine whether to certify that the Final EIR
was adequately prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In
order to certify an environmental impact report, the City Council must make certain
findings regarding the Project's environmental impacts. The findings are included in
proposed Resolution No. 6767 (Attachment A). The Council must make a decision
whether the Final EIR meets the basic legal requirements of CEQA - whether it is legally
adequate. As decision makers, the City Council must determine whether the Final EIR
provides the information that the Council needs to intelligently take account of the
Page 11
environmental consequences of this Project. Please note that certifying a Final EIR as
adequate is not the same thing as approving the Project; the two are, and will remain,
separate decisions.
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines also 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:
1. 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,
2. 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,
3. 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.
The proposed resolution includes findings for this purpose. If the Council certifies the
Final EIR, the Council must also impose conditions to mitigate any adverse
environmental impacts as identified in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
Any decision by the City Council whether to approve the Planning Commission's
certification of the Final EIR must be based on the Project application, the Final EIR and
all supporting appendices, and all other written and oral evidence submitted at the
public hearing. The City Council should deliberate and issue a decision on the proposed
certification of the Final EIR, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for
the Project before taking action on proposed Conditional Use Permit 16 -7. Proposed
Resolution No. 6767 (Attachment A), contains all required findings for the Planning
Commission to certify the Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. If
the City Council determines not to certify the Final EIR, the factual basis for a decision
declining certification of the Final EIR should be set out in an oral motion by the Council,
and if adopted, the Council should then direct Staff to return with a resolution
incorporating those findings at a subsequent meeting. Any such motion should include
specific findings why the Final EIR should not be certified, with direction to staff to return
with a proposed resolution at a subsequent meeting.
Decision on the Conditional Use Permit:
Any decision by the City Council to grant the applicant's appeal and approve the CUP,
must be based on the Project application, the Final EIR and all supporting appendices,
and all other written and oral evidence submitted at the public hearing, and the City
Page 12
Council must make all of the following findings in accordance with SBMC Section
11.5.20.020:
1. The proposal is consistent with the general plan and with any other
applicable plan adopted by the city council;
2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use
permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the
municipal code;
3. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use
being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of
physical constraints;
4. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed
use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and
properties in the surrounding neighborhood; and
5. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the
location proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use.
The discussion above outlines the reasons why Staff believes that the City Council may
make these findings and approve the CUP, and a proposed resolution containing these
findings is enclosed with this Staff Report (Resolution No. 6768, Attachment B).
Resolution No. 6768 also includes proposed conditions of approval. As required by
CEQA, these recommended conditions include all mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which must be included
under CEQA if the Project is approved by the City Council. These latter conditions are
identified as Condition Nos. 45 and 46 in proposed Resolution 6768 (Attachment "B ").
The other conditions include conditions specifically developed for this Project, as well as
standard City conditions.
Alternatively, the City Council may decline to approve the Project if the Council
determines that it cannot make all findings required by SBMC Section 11.5.20.020. The
City Council may deny the Project, even if it certifies the Final EIR. The factual basis for
a decision to deny should be set out in an oral motion by the Council, and if adopted,
the Council should then direct Staff to return with a resolution incorporating those
findings at a subsequent meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
As outlined above, the proposed development of a fitness center constitutes a project
that is subject to review under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on the
findings of an Initial Study, an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
201 701 1 033) was prepared pursuant to Section 21080(d) of the Public Resources
Code. As part of this appeal item, the City Council must determine whether to affirm the
Page 13
Planning Commission's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
under CECA, prior to making any decision on the appeal of the denial of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed resolutions and approved them as to
form.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council hold a de novo hearing regarding the Final EIR and CUP 16 -7 and
after considering all evidence and testimony presented, adopt Resolution No. 6767 to
deny the appeal and approve certification of the Final EIR, and adopt Resolution No.
6768 granting the appeal and approving CUP 16 -7, to construct and operate a 37,000
square foot fitness club at an existing shopping center at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard
within the Commercial General (CG) zoning area.
SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED:
ryst anda o, Jill . Ingram, City a ager
Interim D' or of Community Development
Prepared by: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner
Attachments:
A. City Council Resolution 6767
B. City Council Resolution 6768
C. Appeal Application to City Council, received on July 5, 2017
D. Appeal Application to City Council, received on July 27, 2017
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -15 — Certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report
F. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17 -16 — Denying Conditional Use Permit 16 -7
G. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from June 19, 2017
H. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt from June 27, 2017
I. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations
J. Final Environmental Impact Report dated May 2017, with responses to comments
(delivered to City Council on June 7, 201 7) Available online at:
K.
L. All Project - Related Correspondence Received
Page 14
Attachment "A"
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6767
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AN APPEAL, 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 SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
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. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal.
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14
Cal. Code Reg. Section 15000 et 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 3. 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),
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 4. 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
1
Resolution 6767
Division, Native American Heritage Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation.
Section 5. 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. seal beachca.aov 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 6. 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), and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and from members of the public.
Section 7. 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 8. 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
impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the
Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Section 9. 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 10. A duly noticed public hearing was commenced 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
2
Resolution 6767
Planning Commission, due to an inadvertent error with the noticing the item with regard
to the location of the hearing, opened the public hearing for public comment and two
speakers presented testimony. The Planning Commission, by motion, voted to keep the
public hearing open and continued the item to an adjourned /special meeting of the
Planning Commission on June 27, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Section 11. A duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on June 27, 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. At the public hearing on June 27,
2017, the Planning Commission received into the record the comments forwarded from
the ECCB and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the
subject application. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 17 -15 certifying the Final EIR.
Section 12. The appellant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision
by submitting an Appeal Application to the City Council on July 5, 2017.
Section 13. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
September 11, 2017 to consider the appellant's appeal and the applicant's application
for CUP 16 -7. At the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all
evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. All persons
present who wished to address the Council regarding the matter were permitted to do
so. Based on substantial evidence in the entire record of the hearing, the City Council
finds the following facts to be true.
Section 14. 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 376,029 square feet of gross building area. Pursuant to the applicant, the
applicant requests approval of CUP 16 -7 and certification of an associated 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 15. The City Council 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.ciov /. The custodian of the records is the
Director of Community Development.
3
Resolution 6767
Section 16. 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.
Section 17. 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 18. 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 19. 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
12
Resolution 6767
measures to reduce noise impacts, which are set out on Exhibit B, attached to this
Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 20. 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 City Council finds as follows:
A. All of the recitals set forth above in Sections 1 through 19, 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 City Council has independently considered the record of proceedings
before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
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 City Council.
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 City Council hereby denies the appeal, 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
5
Resolution 6767
Monitoring and Reporting Program are incorporated into the Project and
made a part of its implementation.
Section 21. The City Council hereby instructs the Director of Community
Development to file appropriate documentation with the County of Orange.
Section 22. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular
meeting held on the 11th day of September , 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
Council Members:
NOES:
Council Members:
ABSENT:
Council Members:
ABSTAIN:
Council Members:
Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Robin Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6767 on file in the office
of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 11th day of September , 2017.
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
[-J
Attachment "B"
RESOLUTION NUMBER 6768
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 16 -7 TO CONSTRUCT A 37,000 SQUARE
FOOT HEALTH CLUB (FITNESS CENTER) AT 12411
SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD WITHIN THE SHOPS AT
ROSSMOOR IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC)
ZONING AREA SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
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.
The proposed project includes constructing and operating a 37,000 square foot health
club (fitness center) at an existing shopping center, the Shops at Rossmoor, within the
Commercial General (CO) zoning area.
Section 2. The proposed development of a fitness center constitutes a project
that is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970
(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). Based on the findings of an
Initial Study, the City in conjunction with environmental consultant MIG, Inc. caused
preparation of a Final Environmental Impact •Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2017011033) (Final EIR) pursuant to Section 21080(4) of the Public Resources Code.
Section 3. 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 Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on the project. The
EQCB received public comments on the Draft EIR, and forwarded those public
comments and the EQCB comments to 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 4. A duly noticed public hearing was commenced before the Planning
Commission on June 19, 2017 to consider Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 and the
associated Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. At the public
hearing the Planning Commission, due to an inadvertent error with the noticing the
items with regard to the location of the hearing, opened the public hearing for public
comment and two speakers presented testimony. The Planning Commission, by motion,
voted to keep the public hearing open and continued the items to an adjourned /special
1
Resolution 6768
meeting of the Planning Commission on June 27, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Section 5. The duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the
Planning Commission on June 27, 2017 to consider Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 and
the associated Final EIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. At the
continued public hearing, the Planning Commission took additional public testimony,
received into the record the comments forwarded from the EQCB, and all other written
and oral evidence and testimony provided on this matter, and thereafter closed the
public hearing. Following the public hearing, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, on June 27, 2017, the Planning Commission certified the Final EIR, adopted
findings pursuant to CEQA, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), pursuant to Resolution No. 17 -15. On June 27, 2017, the Planning
Commission also voted to deny CUP 16 -7 and directed staff to prepare and bring back
a resolution of denial to the Commission. Subsequently, on July 17, 2017, the Planning
Commission approved Resolution No. 17 -16, denying CUP 16 -7.
Section 6. Subsequently, on September 11, 2017, the City Council upheld an
appeal of the Planning Commission's determination approving Resolution No. 17 -15,
and voted to certify the Final EIR, adopted findings pursuant to CEQA, and adopted a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), pursuant to Resolution No.
6767.
Section 7. The appellant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision
denying CUP 16 -7, by submitting an Appeal Application to the City Council on July 27,
2017.
Section 8. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
September 11, 2017 to consider the appellant's appeal and the applicant's application
for CUP 16 -7. At the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all
evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. All persons
present who wished to address the Council regarding the matter were permitted to do
so. Based on substantial evidence in the entire record of the hearing, the City Council
finds the following facts to be true.
A. The applicant submitted an application to the Community
Development Department for Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 for a proposed project at
12411 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, California.
B. The subject property is a puzzle piece shaped parcel with a lot area
of approximately 1,544,202 sq. ft. or (35.45 acres). The property is approximately 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.
C. The subject property is currently developed as a commercial
shopping center with approximately 376,029 square feet of gross building area.
2
Resolution 6768
D. The applicant is requesting to construct and operate a large scale
commercial recreational use that is approximately 37,000 square feet in gross floor
area.
E. The health club is proposed to operate seven days a week. Hours
of operation would be 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
F. The Final EIR, as certified by the City Council, identified that the
proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impacts in the
following environmental impact categories: aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources,
air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas,
hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing,
public services, recreation, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems.
The certified Final EIR further found that the Project would have a potentially significant
impact on noise, but also found that with the incorporation of mitigation measures
identified in the EIR, the potentially significant noise impacts of the proposed project
would be reduced below a level of insignificance: No significant and unmitigable impacts
were identified in the EIR. Pursuant to Resolution No. 6767, those mitigation measures
were adopted as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as
Mitigation Measure Noise -1 and Mitigation Measure Noise -2.
Section 8. Environmental Determination.
A. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines.
A Final EIR was prepared for the Project, and is incorporated herein by this reference.
The City Council certified the Final EIR and made environmental findings concerning
the Project by separate action, pursuant to Resolution No. 6767 on September 11,
2017. That resolution is also incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
B. Prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the certified Final EIR with Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the record of proceedings in connection
therewith, as certified and adopted by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 6767,
including the NOP /IS, Draft EIR, all public comments, both written and oral, received in
response to the NOP /IS, Draft EIR and Final EIR, all staff reports, and all of the other
evidence, both written and oral, that was presented to the City Council during the public
hearing held on the proposed Final EIR with MMRP, prior to taking action on this
proposed project.
Section 9. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
Section 10. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the
Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan
which encourages architectural diversity in the commercial area (Planning Area 4) while
3
Resolution 6768
stimulating growth and prosperity of the city and encouraging compatibility between
residential and commercial uses. The construction and operation of a health club will
provide a use that is customarily associated with commercial centers and near
residential uses to encourage and promote recreational facilities.
B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district
with Conditional Use Permit approval and will comply with all other applicable provisions
of the Municipal Code. The subject site is located within the General Commercial (GC)
zone, an area where the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Section 11.2.10.010) allows
health club facilities with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
C. The proposed use, as conditioned below, will be located on a site
that is physically adequate for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed,
including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints. The subject site
is currently developed as a commercial retail shopping center. The construction of the
health club will be located in an area of the center that is currently utilized as a parking
lot behind the Sprouts market. This application will allow the site to continue to conform
to the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Section 11.2.10.015) which provides Development
Standards for the General Commercial (GC) zoned area. The proposed building is
consistent with development standards applicable to height, setbacks and parking.
D. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed use, as conditioned below, will be compatible with and will not adversely
affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The subject site is located
within the General Commercial zone, which consists of properties developed as
commercial retail and office buildings. The proposed building and use with the added
conditions as proposed will compliment the surrounding area and operate in a manner
conducive with the Municipal Code requirements of noise, screening, glare, and other
code requirements. In accordance with the certified Final EIR, the City has included
mitigation measures, (1) to reduce construction noise and to require mufflers on
construction equipment, and (2) to reduce the noise of the air conditioning units for the
proposed project. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall also extend the queuing
length of the left -turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto
westbound Rossmoor Center Way.
E. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed
use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity. The construction and operation of the health club will increase
the landscape area which will soften visual impacts to the residences adjacent to the
site by adding landscaping. The subject site will continue to operate as a commercial
property, which is consistent with the uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Several
conditions have been included to address security concerns in the area around the
proposed health club.
Section 11. Based on the foregoing, the City Council approves Conditional Use
Permit 16 -7 for the construction and operation of a 37,000 square foot health club,
subject to the following conditions and further subject to the certified Final EIR with
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all mitigation measures contained
therein, as certified and adopted pursuant to City Council Resolution 6767:
12
Resolution 6768
1. Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 is approved for the construction and operation of a
37,000 square foot health club located at 12411 Seal Beach Boulevard.
2. All plan check and future construction shall be in substantial compliance with the
plans approved through Conditional Use Permit 16 -7. All new construction shall
comply with all applicable state and local codes.
3. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved
plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and
colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning
Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code
regulations.
4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke or modify this CUP if any
violation of the approved conditions occurs, or any violation of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach occurs.
5. The health club will operate seven days a week. Hours of operation shall be
limited to 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 5:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. on Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced
thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department.
7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the
Municipal Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
8. All ground- mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers,
etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use
of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and /or landscaping to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.
9. All roof mounted equipment such as AC condensers shall be screened from
view.
10. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of
Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and
method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
11. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the
development for the Planning and Engineering Department approval; including,
but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing
for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures,
and security fencing.
12. The contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 A.M.
and 7:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays.
Construction activities will not be permitted on Sundays or any federal holidays.
The applicant shall ensure compliance with this condition.
R
Resolution 6768
13. The contractor, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, shall
provide for all construction vehicles to have mufflers and be maintained in good
operating order at all times. No major vehicle repair shall be conducted on the
site. The applicant shall ensure compliance with this condition.
14. During construction activities, the contractor shall ensure that measures are
complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated
with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering or other dust
palliative measures (such as covering stock piles with tarps) to meet South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)
maintaining equipment engines in proper tune and establishing a preference for
contractors using Tier -3 -rated or better heavy equipment; c) enforce 5- minute
idling limits for both on -road trucks and off -road equipment; d) provide water
spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials; e) cover all trucks
hauling dirt, sand or loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard; and f) sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out
from construction site.
15. During construction activities, the project contractor shall ensure that the project
will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance). Rule 402 prohibits the discharge
from any source quantities of air contaminants or other material which would
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons, the public, or damage to business or property.
16. In accordance with CEQA, in the event that the project generates significant
adverse air quality, that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is
required by law shall be utilized during project construction and operation to
minimize or eliminate the impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15126.4
(a)(1)(D), the applicant shall also mitigate any impacts resulting from mitigation
measures.
17. Any modification or any intensification of the use beyond what is specifically
approved by Conditional Use Permit 16 -7 shall require review and approval by
the Planning Department prior to intensification or modification, or further review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
18. No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials,
shall be permitted without prior City review and approval.
19. The applicant is required to obtain all Building and Safety permits prior to
construction or demolition.
20. This Conditional Use Permit shall not become effective for any purpose unless
an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed, notarized, and returned to
the Community Development Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal
period has elapsed.
21. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims
and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or
corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in
9
Resolution 6768
connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of
the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from
the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Conditional Use
Permit, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any
person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or
connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's
obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall
include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel
of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims,
losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages,
judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action.
22. Upon submittal for Building Plan Check, the plans must show that bike racks will
be provided within the project area. The location of the bike racks must be
approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of Building Permits.
23. The applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native
American Monitor(s) during construction - related ground disturbance activities.
The Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, Kizh
Nation defines ground disturbance to include, but not limited to, pavement
removal, pot - holing, grubbing, weed abatement, boring, grading, excavation, or
trenching within the project area. The monitor must be approved by the Tribal
Representative and will be present on -site during the construction phases that
involve ground disturbance activities. The on -site monitoring shall end when the
project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor
has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources. If
archeological or cultural resources are encountered, they will be documented by
the Native American monitor and collected for preservation.
24. The applicant must reconfigure Rossmoor Center Way between the four way
stop adjacent to Sprouts and Seal Beach Blvd. to provide two westbound lanes,
an eastbound lane and a dedicated eastbound right turn pocket. The
reconfiguration of Rossmoor Center Way must be include in the project Plan
Check submittal and approved by City Staff prior to issuance of building permits.
Engineering Department:
25. The applicant shall modify the City approved traffic signal timing at the
intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Rossmoor Center Way to allow for the
northbound extended left turn.
26. The applicant shall implement City approved new traffic signal coordination
timing and plans for Seal Beach Boulevard from North City Limit to the 1 -405
freeway prepared by a California register traffic engineer.
27. The applicant shall monitor for one (1) year the traffic signal timing and
coordination along Seal Beach Boulevard from North City Limit to the 1 -405
Freeway and report to the City on a monthly basis the conditions prepared by a
California register traffic engineer. Any modifications requested by the City Traffic
7
Resolution 6768
Engineer shall be made by the applicant prepared by a California register traffic
engineer.
28. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall extend the queuing
length of the left -turn pocket lane from northbound Seal Beach Boulevard onto
westbound Rossmoor Center Way, as recommended in the revised queuing
analysis dated April 2016 for the project traffic impact analysis to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. The City may determine a fair -share payment for completion
of such improvements. The improvement will require the removal of newly
installed median landscaping on Seal Beach Boulevard. As a result, the applicant
is required to offset the loss of this landscape resource, by reimbursing the City
for the cost of the landscaping, up to $50,000. The amount shall be in addition to
all other fees required for this project. The reimbursement cost will be specified
after the City Engineer has evaluated and identified the project costs incurred for
landscaping within the median.
29. The applicant shall bear 100% of the cost of all above items.
30. Per the current 2016 - 2017 Fee Schedule and a gross leasable space of 37,000
square feet, the following fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits:
1. Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fee: $3.79/sf X
37,OOOsf = $140,230.00
2. Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Application Fee:
$0.55/sf X 37,OOOsf = $20,350.00
Total combined fee of $160,580.00.
Police Department:
31. The application shall provide and implement a security plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Police Chief or his representative prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. The security plan shall include but not limited to:
placement of security cameras, guard patrol areas and times they will be at the
location.
32. Security must be provided in the project area at least thirty minutes prior to the
opening of the health club and remain on site until at least thirty minutes after the
health club's closing.
33. If the Seal Beach Police Chief or his representative determines, through
evaluation of incidents or calls for service, that the security services provided for
the health club parking area, patrons and /or operations are inadequate to
address the safety concerns of the community and the public, the Police Chief or
his /her designee shall notify the property owner of the Shops and health club
operator in writing to make corrections, and at the owner's /operator's request will
make reasonable efforts to have a meeting to discuss corrections to be made. All
required corrections must be completed within seven calendar days of delivery of
such written notification by the City or within an agreed upon timeline set during
0
Resolution 6768
the consultation between the property owner and the Seal Beach Police Chief or
his representative.
34. The applicant shall install and maintain surveillance cameras in the parking area
(as approved by the Police Chief or his representative on the submitted Security
Plan) that are operating at all times. Recordings of the images captured from
these cameras shall be maintained for a period of 30 calendar days and the
recordings shall be made available for police viewing, upon request.
35. The applicant shall install and maintain video cameras that must be positioned in
a way to capture all parked vehicles in the parking area and cameras shall be
installed for all points of entry and exit of the health club, including any
emergency exits. Cameras shall be installed at mid -level heights to gather
images of the potential suspect(s) faces. Cameras facing the parking lot from the
health club and affixed on top of the parking lot street lights shall face in all
directions. The cameras shall be equipped with:
a. PTZ (Pan/Tilt/Zoom) and Night Vision
b. High Definition or 4k Quality
If the Police Chief or his representative determines that there is a necessity to
have additional security cameras installed, the owners /lessees of the
businesses /complex must comply with the request within 7 days. The Police
Chief or his representative can also require the owners /lessees of the
businesses /complex to change the position of video cameras if it is determined
that the position of the camera does not meet security needs. The owner of the
business must comply with the request within 7 days.
36. The applicant shall install Crime Prevention Signs in and around the parking lot,
i.e. "smile you are being recorded ", etc.
37. The applicant shall provide security lighting to all buildings to eliminate dark
areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all
entryways. The lighting shall be consistent around the entire development.
Lighting in the parking lot, shall be at minimum 1 foot candle.
38. The lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal- resistant fixtures.
Fire:
39. The project is subject to review and approval by the City and the Orange County
Fire Authority (OCFA) during various construction document plan checks for
compliance with the applicable fire life safety codes and regulations. The project
shall be subject to the 2016 editions of the CBC, CFC and related codes.
40. Structures of this size and occupancy are required to have automatic fire
sprinkler systems designed per NFPA 13 as required in the 2016 CBC, CFC.
41. A water supply system to supply fire hydrants and automatic fire sprinkler
systems is required. Fire flow and hydrant spacing shall meet the minimums
identified in the codes, including but not limited to the California Fire Code
9
Resolution 6768
Appendix section. These tables are also located in OCFA Guideline B09,
Attachment 23.
42. Fire apparatus and personnel access to and around structures shall meet the
minimum development standards of the OCFA and California Fire Code
requirements, including but not limited to Section 2 of the OCFA's Guideline B -09
at www.ocfa.ora.
43. If the project scope includes or requires the installation of traffic signals on public
access ways, these improvements shall include the installation of optical
preemption devices.
44. All standard conditions with regard to development, including water supply, built -
in fire projection systems, road grades and width, access, building materials, and
the like will be applied to this project at the time of plan submittal.
Mitigation Measures (pursuant to the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, as certified and adopted by Resolution No. 17 -15):
45. 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.
a. Mitigation Option 1. Install a screen or parapet around the HVAC units. To
be an effective noise barrier, the screen or parapet should extend at least
one foot above the tallest rooftop unit and be continuous at the north and
west edges of the health club building.
b. Mitigation Option 2. Utilize baffles /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.
c. 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.
46. Mitigation Measure Noise -2: During construction, the applicant/developer shall
employ the following standard practices for mitigating construction noise:
a. 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.
10
Resolution 6768
b. Equip internal combustion engine- driven equipment with original factory
(or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good
condition.
c. Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines.
d. Locate all stationary noise - generating equipment such as air compressors
and portable generators as far away as practicable from noise - sensitive
land uses.
e. Utilize "quiet' air compressors and other stationary equipment where
feasible and available.
f. 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.
Section 12. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans,
specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which
this resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours
at the Community Development Department, City of Seal Beach City Hall, 211 8th
Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the 11`h day of September , 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT: Council Members
ABSTAIN: Council Members
ATTEST:
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Mayor
11
Resolution 6768
I, Robin Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6768 on file in the
office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council
at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of September 2017.
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk
12
Attachments "C" through "L"
Please visit the following links to view these attachments:
http://Pubrec.ci.seal-
beach.ca.us/WebLink8/Welcome.aspx?dbid=O
or
http: / /www.seaIbeachca.gov /Government /Agendas- Notices-
Meeting- Videos /Council- Commission - Meetings