HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet_05182020CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Monday,May 18,2020 —7:00 PM
ALL COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF WILL PARTICIPATE VIA TELECONFERENCE
District 1 —Steve Miller
District 2 —Ronde Winkler
District 3 —Michael Thomas
District 4 —Patty Campbell
District 5 —Mariann Klinger -Chair
Department of Community Development
Les Johnson,Community Development Director
Steve Fowler,Senior Planner
Marco Cuevas Jr.,Assistant Planner
Isra Shah,Assistant City Attorney
•City Hall office hours are 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday.Appointments
only at this time.Closed noon to 1:00 p.m.
•The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act.If you need
assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours
in advance of the meeting at (562)431-2527.
•Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3 and on the City's
website (www.sealbeachca.gov).Check the SBTV3 schedule for rebroadcast of meeting —
meetings are available on-demand on the website.
•DVDs of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach TV3 at a cost
of $15 per DVD.Telephone:(562)596 -1404.
•Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are available for public
inspection on the City website at:https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-
Notices-Meeting-Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL:The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:Those members of the public wishing to provide comment
are asked to send comments via email to the City Clerk at gharper@sealbeachca.gov or
via the comment icon on the City website
at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting-Videos/Council-
Commission-Meetings before 7pm on May 18,2020.Comments provided via email will
be posted on the City website for review by the public.Any documents for review should
be sent to the City Clerk prior to the meeting for distribution.No action can be taken by
the Planning Commission on these communications on this date,unless agendized.
CONSENT CALENDAR:Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration.The Planning Commission may make one
motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:Updates and reports from the Director of Community
Development (Planning and Building Divisions)are presented for information to the
Planning Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS:Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions.These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in favor
of or against agendized items.More detailed information is found in the actual agenda
attached.If you have documents to distribute,please email them to the City Clerk at
gharper@sealbeachca.gov before 7pm or via the comment icon on the City website
at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting-Videos/Council-
Commission-Meetings before 7pm on May 18,2020.The documents become part of the
public record.
All proceedings are recorded.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
By Motion of the Planning Commission this is the time to notify the public of any changes
to the agenda,re-arrange the order of the agenda,and provide an opportunity for any
member of the Planning Commission or staff to request an item be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS (VIA EMAIL ONLY)
At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding the items on
this Planning Commission meeting agenda.Pursuant to the Brown Act,the Council
cannot discuss or take action on any items not on the agenda unless authorized by law.
Those members of the public wishing to provide comment are asked to send comments
via email to the City Clerk at gharper@sealbeachca.gov or via the comment icon on the
City website at https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Government/Agendas-Notices-Meeting-
Videos/Council-Commission-Meetings before 7 pm on May 18,2020.Comments
provided via email will be posted on the City website for review by the public.Any
documents for review should be sent to the City Clerk prior to the meeting for
distribution.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A.Approval of the December 2,2019 Minutes
B.Approval of the February 3,2020 Minutes
C.Approval of the April 20,2020 Minutes
CONTINUED ITEMS –None
SCHEDULED MATTERS –None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D.MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 20-1)
24 B Surfside Avenue
Applicant:Al Cadena/Dean Koukladas
Request:Request for MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 20-1)to allow interior and
exterior modifications to remodel the existing first floor kitchen and bathroom area,
modify the second floor by remodeling the master bathroom,add an additional
bathroom,reconfigure the staircase to the rooftop,modify the rooftop to allow for a
deck,and construct an outdoor trellised patio structure at a property that is
nonconforming due to setbacks in Surfside Colony in the Residential Low Density
(RLD-9)zoning area.
Recommendation:After conducting the Public Hearing,staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.20-3,APPROVING Minor Use Permit
20-1 with Conditions.
NEW BUSINESS
E.PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE UPDATED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 743
City-wide
Applicant:City of Seal Beach
Request:Request for the review of the proposed guidelines developed as a result
from the requirements set forth in Senate Bill 743.
Recommendation:That the Planning Commission review the proposed
Transportation Analysis Guidelines and provide comments for City Council
Consideration.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION CONCERNS
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn the Planning Commission to Monday,June 1,2020 at 7:00 p.m.
5
4
8
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:May 18, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
THRU:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
FROM:Les Johnson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Approval of the December 2, 2019 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting
held on December 2, 2019
Prepared by: Approved by:
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
City Clerk Director of Community Development
Attachment:
1. December 2, 2019 Minutes
City of Seal Beach – Planning Commission
December 2, 2019
Chair Campbell called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Thomas led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Campbell, Aguilar, Miller, Thomas
Absent: Klinger
Staff Present: Isra Shah, Assistant City Attorney
Steven Fowler, Interim Community Development Director
Marco Cuevas, Assistant Planner
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Thomas, second by Aguilar, to approve Agenda.
AYES: Aguilar, Campbell, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
Motion by Thomas, second by Aguilar, to excuse the absence of Commissioner Klinger.
AYES: Aguilar, Miller, Thomas, Campbell
NOES: None
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Campbell opened oral communications. Speakers: There were no speakers. Chair
Campbell closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of October 21, 2019 Minutes
Motion by Thomas, second by Miller to approve the October 21, 2019 Minutes.
AYES: Campbell, Aguilar, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
NEW BUSINESS
B. MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 19-8)
421 Jade Cove Way
Applicant: German Melgar/The Jade Cove Trust
Request: Request for a MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 19-8) to allow for an interior
and exterior remodel to an existing two-story single-family residence that is
nonconforming due to lot coverage within the Residential Low Density
(RLD-9) Zone.
Recommendation: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 19-18, APPROVING Minor Use Permit
19-8 with conditions.
Assistant Planner Cuevas, Jr. provided a comprehensive staff report and indicated no
correspondence was received regarding the project.
Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Speakers: Christine Veriga, Joseph Biscan,
and German Melgar. Chair Campbell closed the public hearing.
Motion by Aguilar, second by Miller to approve the adoption of Resolution No. 19-18,
APPROVING Minor Use Permit 19-8 with conditions.
AYES: Campbell, Aguilar, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
Assistant City Attorney Isra Shah noted that the ten-day appeal period starts tomorrow.
C. MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 19-7)
12410 Seal Beach Boulevard Suite “E”
Applicant: John Sanchez for Financial Partners Credit Union
Request: Request for a MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 19-7) to allow the operation of
a 24-hour Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in conjunction with a financial institution
within the General Commercial (GC) Zone.
Recommendation: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 19-17, APPROVING Minor Use Permit
19-7 with conditions.
Assistant Planner Cuevas, Jr. provided a comprehensive staff report and indicated no
correspondence was received regarding the project.
Chair Campbell opened the public hearing. Speakers: There were no speakers. Chair
Campbell closed the public hearing.
Questions and discussion from Chair Campbell, Vice Chair Aguilar, and Commissioners
Thomas and Miller were answered by Interim Community Development Director Fowler
and Assistant Planner Cuevas Jr.
Motion by Aguilar, second by Miller to approve the adoption of Resolution No. 19-17,
APPROVING Minor Use Permit 19-7 with conditions.
AYES: Miller, Thomas
NOES: Campbell, Aguilar
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Failed
Motion by Aguilar, second by Miller to approve the adoption of Resolution No. 19-17,
APPROVING Minor Use Permit 19-7 with conditions. The Planning Commission also
requested an additional condition to include a written Security Plan approved by
Community Development Staff and Seal Beach Police Department.
AYES: Campbell, Aguilar, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: Klinger
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
Assistant City Attorney Isra Shah noted that the ten-day appeal period starts tomorrow.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There was no public hearings
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Interim Community Development Director Fowler wished everyone Happy Holidays.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Campbell and Aguilar wished everyone Merry Christmas and Happy
Holidays.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Campbell adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:48 p.m. to Monday,
December 16, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.
___________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Approved: _______________________
Patricia Campbell, Chair
Attest: ____________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
5
4
8
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:May 18, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
THRU:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
FROM:Les Johnson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Approval of the February 3, 2020 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting
held on February 3, 2020
Prepared by: Approved by:
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
City Clerk Director of Community Development
Attachment:
1. February 3, 2020 Minutes
City of Seal Beach – Planning Commission
February 3, 2020
Chair Campbell called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Klinger led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Campbell, Klinger, Miller, Thomas
Absent: None
Staff Present: Isra Shah, Assistant City Attorney
Les Johnson, Community Development Director
Steven Fowler, Senior Planner
Marco Cuevas, Jr., Assistant Planner
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Thomas, second by Aguilar, to approve Agenda.
AYES: Klinger, Campbell, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Campbell opened oral communications. Speakers: There were no speakers. Chair
Campbell closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
CONTINUED ITEMS - None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
A. Reorganization of Planning Commission – Election of new Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson
City Clerk Harper opened the nominations for Chairperson. Chair Campbell nominated
Commissioner Klinger as Chairperson. City Clerk Harper closed the nominations.
Motion by Campbell, second by Thomas to approve Commissioner Klinger as
Chairperson.
AYES: Campbell, Klinger, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
City Clerk Harper called for nominations for Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Thomas
nominated Commissioner Miller as Vice Chairperson. City Clerk Harper closed the
nominations for Vice Chairperson.
Motion by Commissioner Klinger, second by Thomas to approve Commissioner Miller as
Vice Chairperson.
AYES: Campbell, Klinger, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
Chair Klinger resided over the remainder of the meeting.
Commissioner Thomas recused himself from the meeting due to his residence being within
500 feet of the subject property.
NEW BUSINESS
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 19-9)
1101 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant: Christina Meza c/o Albertsons/Vons/Pavillions
Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 19-9) to allow a type 86
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for the on-site tasting of beer, wine and
distilled spirits at the Pavilion’s super market within the Seal Beach Center in the
Service Commercial (SC) zoning area.
Recommendation: After reviewing the application, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 20-01, DENYING Conditional Use
Permit 19-9.
Assistant Planner Cuevas, Jr. provided a comprehensive staff report and indicated no
correspondence was received regarding the project.
Chair Klinger opened the public hearing. Speakers: Michael Le, Christine Meza, and Ann
Harmon. Chair Klinger closed the public hearing.
Motion by Campbell, second by Klinger to adopt Resolution No. 20-01 DENYING
Conditional Use Permit 19-9.
AYES: Campbell, Klinger
NOES: Miller
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Thomas
Motion Carried
Assistant City Attorney Isra Shah noted that the ten-day appeal period starts tomorrow.
Questions and discussion from Commissioner Campbell, Chair Klinger, and Vice Chair
Miller were answered by Christine Meza c/o Albertsons/Vons/Pavillions, Michael Le and
Assistant Planner Cuevas, Jr.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
There was no Director’s report.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
There were no commission concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Klinger adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 p.m. to Tuesday,
February 18, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
___________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Approved: _______________________
Mariann Klinger, Chair
Attest: ____________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
5
4
8
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:May 18, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
THRU:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
FROM:Les Johnson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Approval of the April 20, 2020 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting
held on April 20, 2020
Prepared by: Approved by:
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
Gloria D. Harper Les Johnson
City Clerk Director of Community Development
Attachment:
1. April 20, 2020 Minutes
City of Seal Beach – Planning Commission
April 20, 2020
Chair Klinger called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
via Teleconference. Commissioner Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Campbell, Klinger, Winkler, Thomas, Miller
Absent: None
Staff Present: Isra Shah, Assistant City Attorney
Les Johnson, Community Development Director
Steven Fowler, Senior Planner
Marco Cuevas, Jr., Assistant Planner
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Campbell, second by Thomas, to approve Agenda.
AYES: Klinger, Campbell, Winkler, Miller, Thomas
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chair Klinger opened oral communications. Speakers: There were no speakers. Chair
Klinger closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of February 18, 2020 Minutes
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Campbell, second by Miller, to approve the Consent Calendar.
AYES: Klinger, Campbell, Winkler, Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Thomas
Motion Carried
CONTINUED ITEMS - None
SCHEDULED MATTERS - None
NEW BUSINESS
B. Minor Use Permit MUP 20-3
51 Riversea Road
Applicant: Bruce Grossman
Request: Request for a Minor Use Permit (MUP 20-3) to allow a two-story
manufactured home within Seal Beach Shores located in the Residential High
Density (RHD-33) zoning area High Density (RHD-33) zoning area
Recommendation: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 20-4, APPROVING Minor Use
Permit 20-3 with Condition
Assistant Planner Marco Cuevas, Jr., provided a comprehensive staff report and indicated
no correspondence was received regarding the project.
Chair Klinger opened the public hearing. Speakers: Bruce Grossman. Chair Klinger closed
the public hearing.
Questions from Commissioners Campbell, Miller and Winkler and Chair Klinger were
answered by Assistant Planner Cuevas, Jr., and Senior Planner Fowler.
Motion by Winkler, second by Thomas to adopt Resolution No. 20-3 APPROVING Minor
Use Permit 20-3 with Conditions.
AYES: Klinger, Winkler, Miller, Thomas
NOES: Campbell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion Carried
Assistant City Attorney Isra Shah noted that the ten-day appeal period starts tomorrow.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-3 IE
1101 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant: Christina Meza/ Von’s/Albertsons
Request: Request for Conditional Use Permit CUP 05-3 IE an indefinite
extension of a previously approved Conditional Use permit for an existing
Pavilions supermarket with a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) alcohol license
located at 1101 Pacific Coast Highway within the Specialty Commercial (SC)
zoning area.
Recommendation: After reviewing the application, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 20-5,
APPROVING Conditional Use Permit 05-3 IE.
Commissioner Thomas recused himself from the Public Hearing as he lives within 500 feet
of the Von’s/Albertsons parcel.
Senior Planner Steve Fowler provided a comprehensive staff report and indicated no
correspondence was received regarding the project.
Chair Klinger opened the public hearing. Speakers: Kevin Le. Chair Klinger closed the
public hearing.
Applicant Kevin Le provided written correspondence in advance of the meeting that was
read into the record.
Questions from Commissioners Campbell, Miller and Winkler and Chair Klinger were
answered by Senior Planner Fowler. A discussion ensued.
Motion by Campbell, second by Winkler to adopt Resolution No. 20-5, APPROVING
Conditional Use Permit 05-3 IE.
AYES: Campbell, Klinger, Winkler, Miller
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Thomas
Motion Carried
Assistant City Attorney Isra Shah noted that the ten-day appeal period starts tomorrow.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Community Director Les Johnson thanked the Commissioners for their flexibility during
these challenging times with the effects of COVID-19. He also offered comments about the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment; and, responded to Commissioner Campbell’s
follow-up questions.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Campbell questioned if Assistant City Attorney Shah is the newly appointed
Attorney for the Planning Commission. Commissioner Thomas wished former Assistant
City Attorney Amy to live a long and prosperous life. He also indicated that his hope is that
the Planning Commission will be able to meet using Microsoft Teams or Zoom for future
meetings.
Community Development Director Les Johnson responded to Commissioner Thomas’
request regarding future Microsoft Team and Zoom meetings
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Klinger adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:55 p.m. to Monday,
May 4, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
___________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
Approved: _______________________
Mariann Klinger, Chair
Attest: ____________________________
Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:May 18, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
THRU:Les Johnson, Director of Community Development
FROM:Marco Cuevas Jr., Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:Request for MINOR USE PERMIT (MUP 20-1) to allow interior and
exterior modifications to remodel the existing first floor kitchen and
bathroom area, modify the second floor by remodeling the master
bathroom, add an additional half-bathroom, reconfigure the staircase
to the rooftop, modify the rooftop to allow for a deck, and construct an
outdoor trellised patio structure at a property that is nonconforming
due to setbacks and parking in Surfside Colony in the Residential Low
Density (RLD-9) zoning area.
LOCATION:24 B Surfside Avenue
APPLICANT:Al Cadena/Dean Koukladas
RECOMMENDATION:After conducting the Public Hearing, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 20-3, APPROVING Minor
Use Permit 20-1 with Conditions.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
ZONE:RLD-9 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY)
SITE DESCRIPTION:ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 178-481-1
LOT AREA: 1,560 SQ. FT.
GROSS FLOOR AREA: 734 SQ. FT.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
NORTH: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD-20)
SOUTH: BEACH (BEA)
EAST: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD-9)
WEST: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD-9)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facility) Categorical Exemption pursuant to
Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the permitting of alterations to the interior and exterior of an
existing residential property where only minor modifications are required for the renovation.
LEGAL NOTIFICATION
The legal notice of this hearing was published in the Seal Beach Sun Newspaper on May 7,
2020 and mailed to property owners and occupants within a 300’ radius of the subject property
on May 7, 2020, with affidavits of publishing and mailing on file.
VICINITY MAP: AERIAL MAP:
ANALYSIS
The applicant, Al Cadena/Dean Koukladas, filed an application with the Community
Development Department for Minor Use Permit 20-1, requesting approval to allow remodeling of
the interior and exterior of the subject property. The subject site is a 1,560 square foot parcel
located on the north side portion of Surfside Avenue within the Surfside Colony, a gated private
residential community. The lot is currently developed with a two-story residence currently
consisting of 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The subject site is in the Residential Low Density
(RLD-9) zoning area and is surrounded by residential uses.
The subject property is nonconforming due to front and interior side yard setbacks, as well as
parking as the property does not provide a two-car garage. According to Table 11.2.05.015 A.1
of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, Surfside Yard Requirements, interior lot properties are
required to maintain a front setback of 2.5 feet, and side yard setbacks that are 10% of the lot
width, or a 3 foot minimum. The subject property measures 26 feet wide by 60 feet deep and
currently has a front yard setback of 1 foot 1 ½ inches which is deficient by 1 foot 3 ½ inches,
and side yard setbacks of 2 feet 3 ½ inches which is deficient by 8 ½ inches. Due to the subject
property’s nonconforming status, a minor use permit is required prior to making certain
structural repairs proposed by the applicant.
The subject property is also nonconforming due to parking. According to Table 11.2.05.015.A.1
of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, residential uses in the RLD-9 zone are required to provide 2
off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The subject site contains a single family dwelling unit
and, by current code standards, is required to have 2 enclosed parking spaces. However, the
site only contains a single enclosed parking space within a garage which makes the site
deficient by 1 enclosed parking space. The existing space does not meet the minimum size
requirement for a single space.
The proposed improvements to the interior of the residence consist of the following
modifications: a remodel of the first floor to the existing kitchen and bathroom area; a
modification of the second floor by remodeling the master bathroom, adding an additional half-
bathroom, a reconfiguration of the interior staircase, and finally modifying the rooftop to allow for
a functional rooftop deck on the property. The deck will be provided with an upgraded roof
access hatch, new flooring, and a glass panel railing system to allow the safe use of the rooftop
deck. No additional habitable square footage is proposed as a part of the improvements.
The proposed improvements to the exterior of the residence include removal of the existing
wood siding from the residence and re-stucco to provide a smooth finish, removal and
replacement of the concrete landing with steps, the addition of a new fixed window on the west
elevation, and the construction of an approximately 170 square foot outdoor patio area with
trellis.
As noted above, the Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC § 11.4.40.015.A and B) allows minor
improvements to nonconforming residential structures, with varying levels of City approval
required. Section A of the above mentioned municipal code allows for improvements requiring
only a building permit for items such as skylights, solar systems, windows, and decorative
exterior improvements. Section B allows for improvements requiring a Minor Permit for items
such as open roof decks, exterior doors, and interior wall modifications which involves the
removal or alteration to less than 25% of a structure’s interior walls provided the
bedroom/bathroom ratio does not exceed one and one-half bathrooms for each bedroom.
Because the applicant’s proposed improvements include interior and exterior remodeling and a
rooftop deck, the Planning Commission’s approval of a minor use permit is required.
The proposed improvements will not result in the removal or alteration of 25% of the subject
building’s interior walls. In addition, the subject building is proposed to have the one less
bedroom and add one and one-half bathroom for a total of 2 bedrooms and 2 ½ bathrooms after
remodeling, which remains consistent with the maximum bedroom/bathroom ratio set forth in
SBMC Section 11.4.40.015.B. The alterations proposed on the subject site are also consistent
with all other provisions of the code and are similar to other improvements in the area. The
proposal will not intensify the nonconforming setbacks. The resolution conditions the approval to
maintain continuing compliance with those requirements.
CONCLUSION
After concluding the public hearing and receiving public testimony, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution No. 20-3 approving MUP 20-1 to allow the
interior and exterior remodel at a nonconforming property.
Prepared by:
Marco Cuevas Jr. Les Johnson
Marco Cuevas Jr. Les Johnson
Assistant Planner Director of Community Development
Attachments: 2
1. Resolution No. 20-3 – A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach Approving Minor Use Permit 20-1 to allow the interior and exterior remodel of a
nonconforming property located at 24 B Surfside Avenue in the Residential High Density
(RLD-9) zoning area.
2. Site Plan and Elevations
RESOLUTION NO. 20-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING MINOR USE PERMIT 20-1
TO ALLOW INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO
REMODEL THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN AND
BATHROOM AREA, MODIFY THE SECOND FLOOR BY
REMODELING THE MASTER BATHROOM, ADD AN
ADDITIONAL BATHROOM, RECONFIGURE THE STAIRCASE
TO THE ROOFTOP, MODIFY THE ROOFTOP TO ALLOW FOR
A DECK, AND CONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR TRELLISED PATIO
STRUCTURE AT A NONCONFORMING PROPERTY THAT IS
NONCONFORMING DUE TO SETBACKS IN THE RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY (RLD-9) ZONING AREA.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE:
Section 1. Al Cadena/Dean Koukladas, (“the applicant and owner”)
submitted an application to the Community Development Department for Minor Use Permit
20-1. The proposed project includes the alteration of less than 25% of interior walls to allow
modifications to remodel the existing first floor kitchen and bathroom area, modify the second
floor by remodeling the master bathroom, add an additional bathroom, and reconfigure the
staircase to the rooftop, modify the rooftop to allow for a deck, and construct an outdoor
trellised patio structure on a property which is nonconforming due to setbacks, and located in
the Residential Low Density (RLD-9) zoning area.
Section 2. This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the permitting
of alterations to the interior and exterior of an existing residential property where only minor
modifications are required for the renovation.
Section 3. A duly noticed public meeting was held before the Planning
Commission on May 18, 2020 to consider Minor Use Permit 20-1. At the public meeting, the
Planning Commission received into the record all evidence and testimony provided on this
matter. The record of the hearing indicates the following:
A. The applicant submitted an application to the Community Development
Department for Minor Use Permit 20-1 for a proposed project at B 24 Surfside Avenue, Seal
Beach, California.
B. The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of
approximately 1,560 square feet. The subject property has a lot width of 26 feet with a lot
depth of 60 feet. The site is surrounded by residential uses on all sides.
C. The subject property is currently developed with a single residential unit.
Based on the setbacks, the subject property is considered nonconforming. The proposed
improvements will not expand any existing nonconformity because no new bedrooms or
additional habitable square footage is proposed.
Resolution 20-3
24 B Surfside Avenue
D. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC § 11.4.40.015.B) allows minor
improvements which involve the removal or alteration to less than 25% of a structure’s
interior walls, provided the bedroom/bathroom ratio does not exceed one and one-half
bathrooms for each bedroom.
Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal
Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. The proposed minor improvements are consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan specifies that redevelopment in the Surfside Colony is to be compatible
with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available
infrastructure. The proposed minor improvements will not change the character of the
residence and will be consistent with other properties.
B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with
Minor Use Permit approval and will comply with all other applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code. The subject site is located within the Surfside RLD-9 zone, an area where
the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Section 11.4.40.015.B) allows minor improvements which
involve interior and exterior alterations.
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 with a single family residence with an attached garage and is considered
nonconforming due to setbacks. The alteration of less than 25% of interior walls and
modification of the roof will not add habitable space and will maintain development standards
applicable to the RLD-9 zone.
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 Surfside
RLD-9 zone, which consists of properties developed as single family residences. Roof decks
and covered roof access structures are common non-habitable architectural features
associated in this zoning district. The property is proposed to be used as a single family
residence which is consistent with the surrounding area.
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 alteration of less than 25% of interior walls will not increase bedrooms, exceed
the bedroom/bathroom ratio authorized under the development standards, or intensify use on
the property. The subject site will continue to operate as a residential property, which is
consistent with the uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
Section 5.Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Minor Use Permit 20-1 for alteration of less than 25% of interior walls in order to
allow modifications to remodel the existing first floor kitchen and bathroom area, modify the
second floor by remodeling the master bathroom, add an additional bathroom, reconfigure
Resolution 20-3
24 B Surfside Avenue
the staircase to the rooftop, modify the rooftop to allow for a deck, and construct an outdoor
trellised patio structure for the property located in the Surfside Colony in the Residential Low
Density RLD (9) zoning area, subject to the following conditions:
1. Minor Use Permit 20-1 is approved for the alteration of less than 25% of interior walls
in order to allow modifications to remodel the existing first floor kitchen and bathroom
area, modify the second floor by remodeling the master bathroom, add an additional
bathroom, reconfigure the staircase to the rooftop, modify the rooftop to allow for a
deck, and construct an outdoor trellised patio structure at a nonconforming property
located at B 24 Surfside Avenue.
2. All plan checks and construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans
approved through Minor Use Permit 20-1. All new construction shall comply with all
applicable state and local codes.
3. The applicant is required to obtain all Building and Safety permits prior to construction
or demolition.
4. All materials, color, and finishes of the wall finish will be consistent with existing roof
pitches and exterior finishes of the residential dwelling.
5. Applicant shall obtain California Coastal Commission approval prior to building permit
issuance.
6.This Minor 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.
7. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents
and employees (collectively “the City” hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses
whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations
furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the
performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein,
and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise
of the rights permitted by this Minor 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning Commission at a
meeting thereof held on May 18, 2020, by the following vote:
Resolution 20-3
24 B Surfside Avenue
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
Mariann Klinger
Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________
Les Johnson
Planning Commission Secretary
Surfside Ave.
26.00'60.00'Seaway Street
PCH Highway
Existing
3-Story Residence
Existing
3-Story Residence
Existing Beach Front
Residence
Interior Remodel:
First Floor: Kitchen & Bath remodel
2nd Floor: Bedroom convert to Master Bath,
remodel 2nd Bath and remodel existing roof
deck stairs for Roof Deck access
Exterior Remodel:
Demo existing concrete landing with steps, and
Add New Patio Trellis Cover in Rear Open Patio.
26.00'60.00'Existing
Main Entry
Existing
2-Story Residence
w/ exist. Roof
Deck
Existing
Sloped Roof
Existing
Sloped Roof
Existing
Beach Front
Existing Beach Front
Residence
Existing Beach Front
Residence
Existing
1-Car Garage
(E) Garage Entry
Existing 6'-0" highBlock WallExist.
Side Gate Entry Step
Existing screen wall
New French
Drain
New French
Drain
New French
Drain
A/C/Heating
condensor Trash RecycleNew French
Drain
Existing 6'-0" highBlock WallNote: 2'-6" setback
required by codeNote: 2'-6" setback
required by code
(E) Property Line
Note: 3'-0" setback
required by code
Note: 3'-0" setback
required by code
Gate Entry
Entry Landing
New Outdoor
Patio Trellis
sink barbcue
counter
Site Plan
Legal Description
Legal Description :
S Twp 5 Rge 12 Sec 24 Sec 24 T 5 R 12 Por
# 178-491-12
Assessor's Parcel Number / Tax ID
Contact : Dean Koukladas
Contact : Al A. Cadena
Lake Elsinore, Ca 92530
Tel. : 714-719-5467
AAC Drafting Services
206 S. Nebraska St.
Dean Koukladas
Tel. : 1-714-394-5122
Designer :
Owner :
Occupancy Group :
Type of Construction :V-B
R-3
Construction Data
Sheet Index
Address : 24B Surfside Avenue
at Surfside Colony
Surfside, Ca 90743
Project Directory
Project Data
Lot :1560 s.f.
Contact : Carlos Larra
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Tel. : 951-245-2578
Lamda Engineering
117 S. Main Street, Ste 100
Engineer
Vicinity Map
Title-sheet & Site PlanA1.0
D1.0 Demo Plan - 1st Floor
PCH Street
24B
SealBeach Blvd.A2.0 First Floor Plan
Scope of Work
A2.1 Second Floor Plan
A2.2 Roof Deck Floor Plan
Surfside Ave.
Beach Front
Seaway Phillips StreetAnderson StreetNew Exterior & Interior Remodeling
Ne 1/4
190 s.f.(E) 1-Car Garage :
D2.0 Demo Plan - 2nd Floor
734 s.f.(E) 1st Floor :
701 s.f.(E) 2nd Floor :
A3.0 Exterior Elevations
A3.1 Exterior Elevations
361 s.f.(E) Roof Deck :
110 s.f.(N) Roof Deck Expansion :
1435 s.f.Total 2-Story Residence :
471 s.f.Total Roof Deck :
Exist. Rear Yard
Exist. Living Room Exist. Garage
Exist. Kitchen
Exist. Bath
First Floor-Demo Plan
Construction LegendDemo Keynotes
Existing Master
Bedroom
Existing Bedroom
Existing Bedroom
Existing Bath
Existing patio
deck
Existing Roof
Deck
Second Floor-Demo PlanRoof Deck-Demo Plan
Construction Legend
Demo Keynotes
Double
Door
Rear EntryRefrig
Pantry
Double
Sink
cooktop
102
Kitchen
103
Kitchen
Nook
101
Living Room
Existing
Main Entry
105
Existing
One-Car
Garage
Up to
2nd Floor
(10'-0" x 7'-0")
(11'-0" x 14'-10")
A/C/Heating
condensor Trash Recycle
(E) Garage Door
Landing
104
Half Bath
(5'-6" x 4'-6")
New
Garage
Entry StepExisting 6'-0" high Block WallExist.
Side Gate
Existing
Landing &
Steps
Exist.
Stairs
Closet
Exist.
Elec.
Panel
Exist.
Side Gate
New French
Drain
New French
Drain
Washer & Dryer
Existing 6'-0" high Block WallExisting 6'-0" high Block WallNew French
Drain
New French
Drain
106
Rear Yard
Rear Entry
Gate
New Rear Entry
step
New Patio Trellis
Cover
sink barbcue
counter
7'-0" x 4'-0"
slider wdw.4'-0" x 4'-0"slider wdw.3'-0" x 3'-0"
slider wdw.
First Floor-Floor Plan
Construction Legend
202
Existing Master
Bedroom
204
Existing
Bedroom #2
203
New Master
Bath
205
New
Bath
201
Existing
Hall
LinenShower
53x48
206
New
Roof Deck
Stairs
207
Storage
Room
Closet
Linen
Up to
Roof Deck
Toilet
Exist.
StairsDown
Closet
4'-0" x 1'-3"slider wdw.24" x 15"slider wdw.4'-0" x 1'-3"
slider wdw.3'-0" x 1'-3"slider wdw.Tankless
W/H 4'-0" x 2'-0"slider wdw.Second Floor-Floor Plan
Construction Legend
302
Roof Deck
(373 sf.)
railing with glass panel
railing with glass panelattached to wallrailing with glass panel
Down
to 2nd
Floor
Existing
Sloped
Roof
Sloped
Roof
Roof
Drain w/ gutter
and downspout
301
Roof Deck
Skylight
Access Hatch
(58 sf.)
Roof
Drain w/ gutter
and downspout
Roof
Drain w/ gutter
and downspout
Roof
Drain w/ gutter
and downspout
1/4 per
Slope
1/4 per
Slope
1/4 per
Slope railing with glass panelattached to wall1/4 per
Slope
Roof Deck-Floor Plan
Construction Legend
South Elevation East Elevation
North Elevation West Elevation
North Elevation
Exterior Elevation Keynotes
7
4
5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE:May 18, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
THRU:Les Johnson, Community Development Director
FROM:Iris Lee, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT:PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE UPDATED TRANSPORTATION
ANALYSIS GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 743
LOCATION:City-wide
RECOMMENDATION:That the Planning Commission review the proposed Transportation
Analysis Guidelines and provide comments for City Council
Consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has determined that the adoption of the Updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines,
which is an action consistent with Senate Bill (“SB”) 743, will not result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Updated
Transportation Analysis Guidelines are not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to
Section § 15378(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Updated Transportation Analysis
Guidelines are not a “project” within pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines
and constitute an action involving procedures for the protection of the environment, which is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15308. Finally, if the Updated Transportation
Analysis Guidelines are determined to be subject to CEQA, they are exempt therefrom because
it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that these amendments will have a
significant effect on the environment. pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
because the proposed action falls under the general rule that CEQA applies only to actions that
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with
certainty that a public review will not have a significant effect on the environment.
LEGAL NOTIFICATION
N/A
ANALYSIS
Background
Starting July 2020, CEQA lead agencies including the City of Seal Beach will need to conduct
CEQA transportation analysis in conformance with Senate Bill 743 (SB-743). This Bill states
that measures of vehicle congestion and delay will no longer be accepted as an environmental
impact.
7
4
5
A new metric for CEQA transportation analysis was developed by the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research based on the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of a Proposed Project, which
is the total distance of vehicle travel associated with a Project. This shift in CEQA transportation
metric promotes outcomes intended to reduce reliance on automobile travel, which align with
State goals for reducing emissions, investing in multimodal transportation networks and
encouraging higher density in-fill development.
The two components of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are (1) the number of vehicle trips
generated, and (2) the distance they travel. The primary determinants of vehicle trips are
household demographics (i.e., their size and composition), and their economic circumstances,
particularly employment status and income level. Distance of travel is influenced by the
geographic distribution of households, employment, schools, shopping and recreational
destinations. In general, VMT is lower in areas where there is a diversity of land uses in close
proximity (i.e., shortening trips), and where there are multimodal transportation networks (i.e.,
reducing the need for vehicle travel).
Since assessing total vehicle miles traveled would put larger projects at a disadvantage and
possibly discourage economic growth, an “Efficiency Metric” or index of VMT by population
and/or employment has been developed to consider the trip purpose and trip productions-and-
attractions. Population VMT includes the production of all home-based origin and destination
VMT, whereas, Employment VMT includes all home-based work attractions and work-based
other production trips.
Threshold of Significance
The new CEQA guidelines provide for a number of screening criteria, by which a project could
be presumed to be less than significant without undergoing detailed analysis.
Projects that are too small to generate a significant number of trips.
Transit Priority Areas – one-half mile in proximity to major transit stops.*
Neighborhood retail that primarily serves the local community.
Projects with a large amount of affordable housing units.
Projects focused on services that primarily serve the community, such as schools, parks,
public buildings, daycare and libraries.
*It should be noted that there are no major transit stops in Seal Beach.
The following thresholds of significance are recommended based on project type:
The City’s thresholds of significance for development projects and land use plans is a
project value residential VMT per capita and employment VMT per employee at or above
the City’s baseline average. A significant impact would occur if the VMT per capita or
VMT per employee exceeds the citywide average VMT per population or per employee
of the baseline.
For transportation projects, a significant impact would occur if the project would result in
an increase to the total baseline VMT in the City (not indexed to population nor
employment).
As baseline data is regularly updated to be in compliance with the latest Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), state and local legislation, and CEQA, authority will be
7
4
5
provided to the Director of Public Works to adopt updates, as necessary. Project thresholds of
significance will be compared to these latest adopted averages.
If a project exceeds the significance threshold, then it would need to be mitigated to less than
significance, through a Transportation Demand Management Plan that could require on-site or
off-site improvements to reduce the number of vehicle trips from the proposed project.
Differences between LOS and VMT
State law does not prohibit using the traditional operations-based level of service (LOS) analysis
for non-CEQA purposes; therefore, the City will be retaining traditional level of service traffic
studies to ensure adequate public infrastructure consistent with General Plan policy.
The following notes the key metric differences under the new CEQA transportation analysis:
Impacts were previously evaluated based on adequacy of roadway operation, where
impacts will now be tied to greenhouse gas emissions.
Activities were previously measured by congestion, where now it will be the daily length
of all trips per person or employee.
The time period of traffic studies was previously analyzed primarily during the morning
and evening peak hours, whereas VMT will look at all travel during the course of a day.
LOS has focused on the amount and quality of vehicle infrastructure, while VMT will be
mostly influenced by land use patterns.
LOS analyses looked at localized impacts, while VMT analyses will be regional in nature
(i.e., measuring all travel even outside of the City). The farther away from the City trips
are made, the greater the impact.
LOS analysis mitigation focuses on vehicles, while for VMT mitigation will focus on non-
vehicle travel such as walking, biking, and transit.
CONCLUSION
As previously noted, this proposed policy update results from the requirements set forth in
Senate Bill 743, which was developed following five years of development through over 200
stakeholder meetings, public meetings and outreach events. The proposed policy language
ultimately encourages the reduction of and shorter vehicle trips versus simply focusing upon the
capacity of an intersection or road segment.
Upon completion of the Planning Commission review, staff will forward the proposed guidelines
and all comments received to the City Council for its consideration.
Prepared by:
Iris Lee_____________________Les Johnson_______________
Iris Lee Les Johnson
Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1. Transportation Analysis Guidelines, tentative adoption date: June 2020
RESOLUTION NO 20-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE UPDATED TRANSPORTATION
ANALYSIS GUIDELINES PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 743
WHEREAS, Governor Edmond. G. Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 in 2013,
directing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop updated criteria
for measuring transportation impacts using alternative metrics that promote a
reduction in greenhouse gases, the development of multimodal transportation,
and a diversity of land uses, and,
WHEREAS, OPR released the proposed updates to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in November 2017; and,
WHEREAS, the Natural Resources Agency released the Final Statement of
Reasons for Regulatory Action Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines in
November 2018; and,
WHEREAS, the Office of Administrative Law approved the CEQA Guidelines on
December 28, 2019, including new CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 that
identifies vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") — meaning the amount and distance of
automobile travel attributable to a project — as the most appropriate metric to
evaluate a project's transportation impacts; and
WHEREAS, as a result, automobile delay, as measured by "level of service" and
other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental
effect under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) allows lead agencies to
adopt thresholds of significance for the lead agency’s general use in its
environmental review process by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulations,
developed through a public review process, and be supported by substantial
evidence; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach has updated its Transportation Analysis
Guidelines pursuant to SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3; and,
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2020, the Planning Commission considered staff’s
presentation and reviewed the updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the adoption
of the Updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines, which is an action consistent
with Senate Bill (“SB”) 743, will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable
indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, the Updated
Transportation Analysis Guidelines are not a “project” within the meaning of
CEQA pursuant to Section § 15378(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the
Updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines are not a “project” within pursuant to
Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines and constitute an action involving
procedures for the protection of the environment, which is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15308. Finally, if the Updated Transportation
Analysis Guidelines are determined to be subject to CEQA, they are exempt
therefrom because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
these amendments will have a significant effect on the environment. pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed action falls
under the general rule that CEQA applies only to actions that have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with
certainty that a public review will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. Recommend that the City of Seal Beach City Council adopt the
updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines pursuant to SB 743.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning
Commission at a meeting held on the May 18, 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
Mariann Klinger
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Les Johnson
Planning Commission Secretary
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Prepared by the City of Seal Beach Public Works
Steve Myrter, Director
Iris Lee, City Engineer
June 2020
PAGE 2 OF 20
Contents
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OVERVIEW .............................................................................3
A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES ...............................................................................4
WHEN IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REQUIRED? ..........................................................4
TYPICAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE....................................................................5
B CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES..................................................11
WHEN IS A CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT REQUIRED? .............................11
CEQA ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK.................................................................................12
APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS...........................................................17
APPENDIX B - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET .......................18
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET ................................................21
PAGE 3 OF 20
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
Transportation Analysis of proposed projects in the City of Seal Beach includes A)
operational analysis of the project impact of parking, site access, and intersection
operations consistent with the City’s General Plan; and B) environmental assessment
consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Not all projects are
subject to these analyses and the requirement parameters are described in these
guidelines. Questions regarding traffic impact studies or environmental transportation
assessment should be directed to the City Engineer or designee at (562) 431-2527.
These guidelines are organized into two sections:
A.Traffic Impact Study Guidelines are conducted to ensure projects meet City
requirements for parking, site access, and intersection operations.
B.CEQA Transportation Assessment Guidelines for projects required to perform
environmental assessment for transportation impacts of vehicle miles traveled to
promote state goals of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development
of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
PAGE 4 OF 20
A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES
Traffic Impact Studies are conducted to ensure projects meet City requirements for
parking, site access and intersection operations.
The following are minimum requirements for a Traffic Impact Study for submittal to the
City of Seal Beach, California. In order to maintain consistency with the traffic reports
submitted by various applicants, these requirements must be fulfilled in addition to any
other special requirements, as will be discussed later in this document, before a Traffic
Study Report can be reviewed and/or accepted by the City. While a considerable
amount of details are presented below, the following will serve as a general overview of
the City’s current Traffic Study Report requirements. The City reserves the right to
modify these guidelines as necessary.
The City Engineer or designee, in conjunction with these guidelines, will make a
determination on the need for a Traffic Impact Study. Once this need is determined, the
City will formally notify the applicant. At this point, the applicant is required to have a
professional Traffic Engineer conduct the traffic study and prepare the report.
Once a Traffic Engineer has been selected, the selected Traffic Engineer shall contact
the City Engineer or designee at (562) 431-2527 to define the scope and the
parameters of the traffic study. Any special requirements and elements to be studied
beyond the scope of the minimum requirements will be determined at this point. These
minimum requirements must be met before the report is deemed complete.
WHEN IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REQUIRED?
The determination of whether a Traffic Impact Study will be required is based on five
basic factors. These factors are:
1)A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is required for new developments or for the expansion
of existing developments which are forecast to generate a minimum of 50 vehicles
per hour (total two-way) during the greater of the A.M. or P.M. peak hours. In
general, this lower limit includes:
Single family residential developments of 20 or more dwellings.
Multi-family residential developments of 30 or more dwellings.
Commercial developments of 5,000 square feet or more building area. All
commercial developments, regardless of size, which include any type of
restaurant, will require a TIS.
Office developments and industrial developments of 5,000 square feet or more.
All mixed use developments.
All car washes of any type.
Gas stations/convenience stores.
2)A TIS will also be required for all developments, regardless of size, located within
PAGE 5 OF 20
300 feet of the intersection of two arterial streets as defined in the General Plan or
for any developments fronting on two different streets, regardless of classification.
3)The presence of an existing or future traffic safety problem will require a TIS.
4)The location of the developments in an environmentally or otherwise sensitive area,
or in an area that generates controversy will require a TIS.
5)The presence of a near-by sub-standard intersection or street will require a TIS. The
sub-standard condition is normally considered to be level of service “D” or worse.
Other developments at or below these thresholds may be required by the City Engineer
or designee to submit a letter analysis.
TYPICAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OUTLINE
Each Traffic Impact Study submitted to the City of Seal Beach shall contain each of the
following elements unless the topic is entirely not applicable:
1)Executive Summary
2)Introduction
3)Area Development
4)Existing Street Systems
5)Project Description and Location
6)Traffic Generation Forecast
7)Traffic Distribution and Assignment
8)Traffic Impact Study
9)On-Site Parking and Circulation
10)Truck Service Impacts
11)Active Transportation Impacts
12)Transit Impacts
13)Construction Period Impacts
14)Mitigation Measures
Detailed descriptions of the above elements are presented below.
Executive Summary
This portion of the report should present factual and concise information relative to the
major issues. Pertinent information in this regard will include a brief overview of the
project, a short discussion of the projects traffic generation potential, the expected
impacts of the project and a summary of measures necessary to mitigate resultant
project impacts.
Introduction
A detailed description of study procedures, plus a general overview of the proposed
project site and study area boundaries, existing and proposed site uses, and existing
PAGE 6 OF 20
and proposed roadways and intersections within in the defined study area (defined
study area to be determined by City Engineer or designee). Exhibits required for this
section includes a regional map showing the project vicinity and a site layout map.
Area Development
A specific description of existing and proposed land uses surrounding the proposed
project site need to be provided. If the land uses differ from the general plan designation
for a particular parcel, it needs to be indicates in this section.
Existing Transportation System
This section will contain a definition of Regional and Local access including any CMP
roadway which will serve the proposed project. This includes all major access routes to
the site with descriptions of the most likely routes to be utilized.
Minimum information in this section shall include generalized geometric descriptions,
i.e. the particular roadway as classified by the Seal Beach General Plan with the
pavement and the right-of-way widths. A description is also required of existing traffic
volumes that use the particular facility (include the source of your traffic count
information). The adequacy of pedestrian facilities and the accessibility of bicycles and
from adjacent transit stops shall also be described.
An exhibit showing the various roadways in the study area and presenting peak hour
traffic count information, as well as a table showing daily (24-hour) volumes and Master
Planned roadway configurations, is required. All traffic counts used need to have been
surveyed within 12 months of the traffic study completion date unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer or designee.
Project Description and Location
This section shall expand on information presented in the introduction giving a detailed
development scenario and specific project location. Exhibits in this section shall include,
at a minimum, a clear illustration of the project in terms of a site plan, its density,
adjacent roadways, on-site parking supply, proposed traffic circulation within the project,
gross square footage, number of rooms/units, phasing, and other descriptions as
appropriate. Any changes in these descriptors during the permitting and construction
processes will require an amendment to the study report.
Traffic Generation Forecast
The traffic generation section of the report will include trip generation estimates for the
project based on standard trip generation values established by the City Engineer or
designee. Typically, these values will be derived from Trip Generation, latest Edition,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), but can be modified if the
applicant proposes specific and permanent measures to reduce the traffic generation
potential of the project.
However, to achieve reductions in estimated generation factors, the applicant must
describe, accurately and completely, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in
PAGE 7 OF 20
trip generation, and the basis for the estimate. It is not sufficient to state information is
based on “past studies” without first presenting and reviewing these studies with the
City Engineer or designee prior to preparing the report. The applicant’s Traffic Engineer
should submit the proper documentation to prove the proposed reduction.
In all cases, the generation values must be displayed in terms of A.M., P.M., and
afternoon peak hour volumes as well as daily (24-hour) volumes. Some uses may
require traffic counts and studies during hours other than the peak hours, as determined
by the City Engineer or designee. Documented reductions to generated values as
discussed above or for “passer-by” and transit trips must be presented in the generation
forecast as well.
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Traffic distribution shall be consistent with the distribution patterns currently being used
in the City. On that basis, the prospective applicant should consult with the City
Engineer or designee for this information particularly in regard to the different
distribution patterns for uses such as commercial, industrial, and residential. The City
Engineer or designee prior to starting the study must approve any deviations from this
concept.
The section is to include a description of the utilization of study area roadways by site-
generated traffic. An exhibit must be supplied with this section which presents projected
daily link volumes between intersections, as well as morning and afternoon peak house
turning movement volumes at intersections. All of this information is usually presented
on two exhibits: one presenting daily link volumes between intersections; and the
second illustrating morning and afternoon peak hour turning movement volumes within
the study area. However, with concurrence from the City, one exhibit could be
acceptable depending on the size of the report.
Traffic Impact Study
The traffic study will be the key to the report. Unless directed otherwise by the City
Engineer or designee, all reports will include a study of intersection operation as well as
midblock operation. The intersection analysis will be performed via the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure as outlined in the appendix “B” to this document.
The link analysis shall follow the highway capacity manual method.
In all cases, the analysis of intersection operation must be formulated for existing
conditions and existing plus project conditions. Cumulative conditions need to be
addressed and will be utilized to assess impacts relative to development of additional
approved or in the process of being approved projects.
Three time frames will be addressed in the traffic impact study. These are:
1) Existing year.
2) Project completion year (One for each completed phase for multi-phase project).
3) General Plan target year (20 years in the future).
PAGE 8 OF 20
Additional time frames as designated by the City Engineer or designee may be required
for large multi-phased developments.
Also, a table is to be included which identifies the forecast Level of Service (LOS) for
each intersection within the defined study area. This summary table shall present LOS
for both the background and background plus project conditions for all scenarios.
Regardless of the location (i.e. either at or removed from the project location), specific
mitigation measures must be clearly identified in the text with supporting information
presented in the above table as well as on exhibits. These exhibits will show proposed
lane configurations, modified right-of-way requirements, signal modifications, and other
measures as required.
If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the
circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consistent with the Circulation
Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic study, they shall provide a
description of such proposals in writing to the City, along with supporting data justifying
their use.
Unless otherwise defined by the City Engineer or designee, the following intersections
will be analyzed:
All signalized intersections within 1/2 mile of the project.
All intersections on arterial streets within 1 mile of the project where project traffic
represents 1% or more of the peak hour critical volumes entering the intersection.
All project site driveways.
The capacity of individual lane type to be used in the ICU calculations are as shown
below.
Left Turn Lanes – 1,600 vehicles per hour
Through Lanes – 1,700 vehicles per hour
Right Turn Lanes – 1,700 vehicles per hour
Shared Lanes – 1,600 vehicles per hour
Yellow clearance/lost time should always be 0.100.
Link analysis shall be performed on all sections of arterial highways and collector streets
within the project area where the daily project traffic after distribution to the street
system represents 1% or more of the total directional volume. For the purposes of this
report, links will be started and ended at each traffic signal and project entrance. High
accident locations significantly impacted by the project are to be analyzed and
mitigated. For the purpose of the high accident location, the level of significance is as
defined for the links and intersections.
PAGE 9 OF 20
On-Site Parking and Circulation
This section will assess the on-site vehicle and bicycle parking supply versus the
parking required per City codes. If the proposed development is of mixed-use type, a
table shall be included presenting each land use, its size, and the code parking
requirement.
This table should clearly indicate how the code parking was calculated and include the
proposed on-site parking supply together with the resultant surplus or deficit from code
requirements.
Should the on-site parking supply be less than required by the City code, a detailed
explanation justifying a reduction to the code requirement must be included. This does
not eliminate the need for any zoning code variance.
A discussion of on/off-site circulation shall be included in this section complete with
descriptions of the proposed access points, turn prohibitions, number of lanes
proposed, proposed bus stop locations, bicycle facilities, sidewalks and paths,
deceleration or acceleration lanes provided, turn pocket requirements, vehicle storage
length requirements, and any other applicable circulation issues.
Truck Service Impacts
A discussion of on/off-site delivery truck circulation shall be included in this section
complete with descriptions of the proposed access points, turn prohibitions, number of
lanes proposed, deceleration or acceleration lanes provided, turn pocket requirements,
vehicle storage length, most probably routes to the site requirements, and any other
applicable circulation issues.
This section will also address the on-site delivery docks versus the requirement based
on City code. This discussion should clearly indicate how the code requirement was
calculated.
Should the number of docks be less than required by the City code, a detailed
explanation justifying a reduction to the code requirement must be included. This does
not eliminate the need for any zoning code variance.
Active Transportation Impacts
A discussion of bicycle and pedestrian circulation shall include how the project will affect
the use, safety of, or condition of existing or planned facilities.
Transit Impacts
All transit stops within one-half mile of the project shall be described through their
scheduled service, condition, and access to and from the project site.
Construction Period Impacts
This section shall include a discussion of any unusual circumstances anticipated during
construction. Proposed roadway lane closures, construction signage, safety features,
PAGE 10 OF 20
and detours shall be included. The City of Seal Beach, in general, requires all lanes on
arterial roads shall be open to traffic during the periods from 6 to 9 AM and 4 to 7 PM.
At no time will any street capacity be reduced or closed without written permission of the
City Engineer or designee.
Mitigation Measures
All measures required to mitigate intersection or roadway links with a significant impact
on the Level-of-Service or high accident rate must be presented in this section. A table
presenting resultant Level-of-Service for existing plus project conditions with and
without mitigation shall be included. Appropriate text along with the sketches must be
provided detailing each mitigation measure assumed in the study and method(s) of
implementing those measures described. Unless otherwise prescribed by the City
Engineer or designee, the following increases in Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
shall be deemed an impact and require mitigation.
Existing ICU Project Related Increase in ICU
0.00 – 0.69 0.06
0.70 – 0.79 0.04
0.80 – 0.89 0.02
0.90+0.01
Unless otherwise prescribed by the City Engineer or designee, intersections or roadway
links having five or more reported accidents within the most recent 12 month period
within significant influence of the project shall be analyzed and will require mitigation.
The level of significance is as listed above. This figure of five accidents is a generalized
figure used by the City as an indication of potential problems. The requirement for
mitigation will depend on the location, i.e. intersection or midblock, and configuration,
i.e. roadway width, number of lanes, sight distance, signalization, and the like.
Sketches illustrating proposed mitigation must be included, either in this section, the
appendix, or accompanying the report. These sketches shall include, as a minimum, the
existing intersection geometrics, striping, right-of-way, building locations (as applicable),
and the proposed modifications.
Recommended signal phasing shall be provided for suggested mitigation measures,
which will affect existing traffic signals as well as new traffic signal locations.
It should be noted improvements necessary as a result of project-related impacts could
become conditions of approval for the subject development. Improvement of the
roadways adjacent to the project, to at least half-width configuration, could also be a
condition of approval. Additional off-site traffic related improvements may be required as
determined by the City Engineer or designee on a project by project basis.
PAGE 11 OF 20
B CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
CEQA Transportation Assessments are required for environmental documentation in
conformance with Resources Code section 21099 directing lead agencies to use criteria
for determining the significance of transportation impacts that “promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and
a diversity of land uses.
Seal Beach, as a CEQA lead agency, developed the following analysis methodology,
significance thresholds, and mitigation measures to address potential significant
impacts in accordance with Title 14. Natural Resources, Division 6. California Natural
Resources Agency, Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Beginning July 1, 2020 CEQA analysis for determining potential significant
transportation impacts transitioned from an automobile delay or capacity measure to a
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric in evaluating a project’s environmental impacts
under CEQA as required by Senate Bill (SB) 743. This necessitated a separation of
transportation analysis into two types, with section A) Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
no longer applicable for CEQA analysis.
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of
transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service analysis that evaluated a
project’s impacts on traffic conditions on nearby roadways and intersections.
Section XVII of Appendix G (Environmental Checklist) includes the following
transportation items to be addressed in an initial study. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)(1)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
WHEN IS A CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?
A CEQA Transportation Assessment is required for any project undergoing review
under CEQA. A project may be presumed to be less than significant if it meets one or
more screening criteria, or would require further study to determine potential significant
impacts.
PAGE 12 OF 20
The four outcomes of CEQA Transportation Assessment for a project are:
1)Screened from Further Analysis: Screened from analysis and presumed to be less
than significant based on screening thresholds.
2)Less than Significant: Not screened from analysis and CEQA Transportation
Assessment is conducted which found the project to be less than significant.
3)Less than Significant After Mitigation: Not screened from analysis and CEQA
Transportation Assessment is conducted which found the project to be potentially
significant, feasible mitigation measures are applied, and the project is less than
significant transportation impacts after mitigation.
4)Statement of Overriding Considerations: Not screened from analysis and CEQA
Transportation Assessment is conducted which found the project to be potentially
significant, feasible mitigation measures are applied and a project cannot achieve
less than significant transportation impacts after mitigation and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is approved.
CEQA ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
CEQA transportation analysis in the City is focused on the impact of automobile and
light truck VMT from residents and employees. Project will be analyzed for the entire
VMT of their trips, including outside of the City. A Project’s change in VMT will be
analyzed and assessed on a per capita and/or per employee in order to use an
efficiency-based metric. These are compared to a baseline average City value to
determine potential significant transportation impact. VMT from heavy trucks are not a
component of the CEQA transportation analysis.
The tool used to calculate VMT and efficiency metrics of VMT will be the Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM) which is a subarea model of the Southern
California Association of Government’s (SCAG) travel demand model. Most projects will
be analyzed using the average VMT by trip type from the model traffic analysis zone
(TAZ) the project is located. Since VMT is primarily a function of the location of a
project, and the TAZ is the smallest geography in the Model, a project will be assumed
to have the same average VMT characteristics as neighboring development within the
TAZ. Contact the City Engineer or designee at (562) 431-2527 for VMT information.
For very large projects, as directed by the City Engineer, new model scenarios that
include the proposed project may need to be produced, provided it is based on methods
and assumptions approved by the City. The Project and citywide VMT outputs shall be
from the same model and model version as to be internally consistent for the CEQA
determination.
The SCAG travel demand model is updated every four years, with OCTAM updated
subsequently. Baseline VMT values will be updated when a new model is released. The
existing/baseline year of the model will be used for CEQA baseline conditions and the
future year (approximately 20 year forecast) scenario will provide future year and
PAGE 13 OF 20
cumulative analysis VMT information.
The format of the CEQA Transportation Assessment would vary depending on the
requirements of the environmental documentation, however it must conform to these
guidelines.
Screening Criteria
Since the SB 743 law is intended to provide CEQA relief to projects that support the
State’s GHG emission goals the screening of projects as presumed as less than
significant is an incentive for development in areas where vehicle trips are shorter or
where other modes of transportation are supported. The screening therefore limits the
technical analysis of CEQA transportation impacts to those projects which have the
potential of significant impacts.
The following project conditions are reviewed at the CEQA Checklist stage to determine
if a project can be presumed to have a less than significant CEQA transportation impact
or if a specialized study in conformance with these guidelines is required for the
determination. The City maintains discretion to approve a project applicant’s conditions
for a presumption of less than significant.
Small Projects: Projects that would generate less than 250 vehicles per day based on
the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual may be
presumed to be less than significant. As with other types of transportation analysis, the
trip generation of the current uses could be removed from the proposed project so only
net trips are assessed. A project demonstrating fewer and/or shorter trips leading to
lower VMT than existing conditions could be presumed to be less than significance.
Transit Priority Areas: Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are located within 1/2 mile of a
major transit stop, and projects within them can be generally presumed to be less than
significant. A "major transit stop" is a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either
a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a
frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon
peak commute periods. There are no current or planned TPAs in the City. The Electric-
Main bus stop served by OCTA and Long Beach Transit does not have frequent enough
service to be considered a “major transit stop”.
Retail Projects: By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby
improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten
trips and reduce VMT. Thus, the City generally presumes such development creates a
less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the
other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to
have a significant impact.” Locally serving retail less than 50,000 square feet can be
presumed to be less than significant.
Affordable Housing: Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves
jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Further, “… low-
wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to
PAGE 14 OF 20
their workplace, if one is available.” Evidence supports a presumption of less than
significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the
residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations.
Community-Serving Projects: Similar to the screening of retail projects, community-
serving or municipal projects such as schools, parks, community centers, public
buildings, day care and libraries intended for local use could be presumed to have a
less-than-significant impact on transportation based on the discretion of the City.
Transportation Projects: Transportation projects not expected to increase VMT (such
as intersection turn lanes, signalization, bicycle, pedestrian, or transit projects), as
determined by the City’s Public Works Department, would be presumed to have a Less
Than Significant CEQA Transportation Impact.
Analysis Methodology
Projects not screened as Less Than Significant transportation impacts would be
required to undergo a CEQA Transportation Assessment. The OCTAM, or other similar
models as approved by the City Engineer, will be used to determine the project’s VMT.
Project VMT may be determined through new model runs or by using the VMT per
capita or employee for the current land uses in the model TAZ that would contain the
proposed project.
VMT is split into different land use and trip type components of home-based (residential)
VMT and work-based (employment) VMT. These VMT will be indexed by the number of
residents and the number of employees respectively. Therefore the two VMT metrics
are in the two following categories:
Residential VMT per capita: Home-Based Production VMT / Residential Population
Employment VMT per employee: Home-Based Work Attraction VMT and Work-
Based Production
In order to develop the VMT component of the metrics, travel demand model outputs by
trip purpose and productions and attractions must be considered. The delineation of
productions and attractions include both ends of an origin and destination trip. For
example, production VMT for home-based work trips represents the total VMT of all
commute trips VMT for people living in the City to and from wherever they work. The
attraction VMT represents the VMT of all people commuting to and from the City for
work no matter where they live.
Residential VMT includes the production of all home based VMT. Employment VMT
includes home-based work attraction and work-based other production.
The estimated number of residents will be based on city average, or other estimates of
the full occupancy of the residential units of a proposed project. Number of employees
may be estimated using Typical Employment Conversion Factors from the Orange
County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual or the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
PAGE 15 OF 20
The maximum internal capture of persons residing in and working in a mixed use
development shall be three percent of the residents. The maximum average VMT
reduction for residents of affordable housing units shall be four percent (e.g. a 100
percent affordable housing development could reduce average VMT per capita by a
maximum of four percent whereas a 50 percent affordable housing development could
reduce average VMT per capita by a maximum of two percent).
Thresholds of Significance
The City’s thresholds of significance for development projects and land use plans is a
project value residential VMT per capita and employment VMT per employee at or
above the City’s baseline average. A significant impact would occur if the VMT per
capita or VMT per employee exceeds the citywide average VMT per population or per
employee of the baseline.
For Transportation Projects, a significant impact would occur if the project would result
in an increase to the total baseline VMT in the City (not indexed to population nor
employment).
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives and
mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant
environmental impacts (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a)).
If a significant transportation impact is identified for a project, it will be the Project
applicant’s responsibility to submit a mitigation measure plan to reduce impacts to Less
Than Significant. Options include provision of on-site transportation infrastructure, on-
site transportation demand management, off-site infrastructure improvements including
roadway improvements for active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or off-site
multimodal improvements. The City Engineer or designee will review, make necessary
changes and approve the TDM plan.
PAGE 16 OF 20
APPENDICES
Detailed appendix material is to be supplied as part of the report. If the main report is
too large to include an appendix, such material shall be provided under a separate and
identifiable cover. Typical material in this regard includes traffic counts, ICU calculation
work sheets, HCM Link Analysis worksheets, fully completed signal warrants, accident
diagrams at high accident locations, sketches of proposed mitigation measures, and
other information necessary for the City’s review of the report.
PAGE 17 OF 20
APPENDIX A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
For intersections, Level of Service is described in terms of Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU). This ICU calculation, shown in Appendix B, quantifies the delay
experienced by drivers at the intersection.
Table 1 – Intersection Level of Service Definitions
LEVEL OF
SERVICE OPERATING CONDITION ICU
VALUE
A Free flowing, virtually no delay. Minimal traffic <0.60
B Free low and choice of lanes. Delays are minimal. All
cars clear intersection easily.0.60-0.69
C
State flow. Queue at signal starting to get relatively
long. Delays starting to become a factor but still within
“acceptable” limits.
0.70-0.79
D
Approaching unstable flow. Queues at intersection are
quite long but most cars clear intersection on their
green signal. Occasionally, several vehicles must wait
for a second green signal. Congestion is moderate
0.80-0.89
E
Severe congestion and delay. Most of the available
capacity is used. Many cars must wait through a
complete signal cycle to clear the intersection.
0.90-0.99
F
Excessive delay and congestion. Most cars must wait
through more than one on one signal cycle. Queues are
very long and drivers are obviously irritated.
>1.00
For areas of roadways situated between intersections, LOS is described via a “mid-
block roadway link” analysis. Highway capacity manual-Chapter 15 is used to find the
Level-of-Service provided under section “Mitigation Measures’ and duplicated here for
quick reference.
PAGE 18 OF 20
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE ICU CALCULATIONS
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
PROJECTA Any Project
N-S STREETB Any Street E-W STREETC Any Avenue
TIMED ANALYSTE Semore Green
DATEF February 28, 2021_
TRAFFICG BACKGROUND TIME FRAMEH CURRENT
PROJECT BUILDOUT
YEAR
APPROACH
DIRECTION
MOVEMENT VOLUMEI
(VPH)
LANESJ CAPACITYK V/C
RATIOL
CRITICAL
VALUEM
LEFT 242 2 3200 0.076 ***
THRU 830 2 3400 0.258NB
RIGHT 47 0
LEFT 138 2 3200 0.043
THRU 871 2 3400 0.345 ***SB
RIGHT 302 0
LEFT 280 1 1600 0.175 ***
THRU 286 2 3400 0.084EB
RIGHT 237 1 1700 0.139
LEFT 149 1 1600 0.093
THRU 548 2 3300 0.232 ***WB
RIGHT 217 0
SUM OF CRITICAL MOVEMENTSP 0.827
YELLOW CLEARANCEQ 0.1
ICU VALUER 0.927
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
N
O
PAGE 19 OF 20
A Enter the name of the development being studied at the location.
B Enter the name of the North-South street of the intersection being analyzed.
C Enter the name of the east-west street of the intersection being analyzed.
D Enter an “X” to indicate the time being analyzed. If the time is other than the AM or PM peak period,
enter the time period being analyzed.
E Enter the name of the person doing the analysis at this intersection.
F Enter the date on which the traffic count was taken. Note that this is not the date the analysis was
performed.
G Enter an “X” to indicate the type of traffic being used in the study. If the traffic type is not listed, indicate
the type.
H Enter an “X” to indicate the time frame of the traffic listed. If the time is for some year other than the
current year or build out year, indicate the year.
I Use this column to enter the traffic volume for each turning movement on each approach for the time
period being analyzed.
J Enter the number of lanes for each movement on each approach. Do not use “1/2” lanes to indicate
shared lanes. For example, the westbound approach in the example CU worksheet has three lanes.
The left lane is an exclusive left-turn lane, the center lane is a through movement only lane, and the
curb lane is a shared through/right turn lane. This column indicates 1 for the left turn lane, 2 as the
number of through lanes and no right turn lanes. Traffic volumes for the right turns would be added to
the through movement in the calculations.
K Enter the capacity for each movement as the sum of the lane capacity for that type of movement times
the number of lanes. Use the following capacities:
Left turn lanes – 1600 vehicles per lane per hour through lanes – 1700 vehicles per lane per hour
Right turn lanes – 1700 vehicles per lane per hour shared lanes – 1600 vehicles per lane per hour
Referring to the westbound approach in the example, the capacity for the through movement is 3300
vehicles per hour, reflecting 1700 for the exclusive thorough lane, and 1600 for the shared
through/right turn lane.
PAGE 20 OF 20
L Enter the Volume to Capacity ratio (V/C) for each movement in this column. In the sample problem,
the V/C ratio of the northbound through movement is (830+47) divided by 3400, or 0.258. The V/C
ratio of the westbound through movement is (548 + 217) divided by 3400, or 0.225.
M Indicate if the V/C ratio is the critical V/C ratio for this approach
N The critical V/C ratios for the north-south street are determined by comparing the sum of the
northbound left turn V/C ratio plus the larger of the southbound through movement V/C ratio or the
south bound right turn V/C ratio to the sum of the south bound left turn V/C ratio plus the larger of the
northbound through movement V/C ratio or the northbound right turn V/C ratio and determining the
greater. In this case, 0.076 + 0.345 = 0.424 which is greater than 0.043 + 0.258 = 0.301, meaning that
the former V/C ratios are the critical movements. Since the through movements and the right turn
movements can be made at the same time, only the larger of these two is critical.
O The critical V/C ratios for the east-west street are determined by comparing the sum of the eastbound
left turn V/C ratio plus the larger of the westbound through movement V.C ratio or the westbound right
turn V/C ratio to the sum of the westbound left turn V/C ratio plus the larger of the eastbound through
movement V/C ratio or the eastbound right turn V/C ratio and determining the greater. In this case,
0.232 + 0.175 = 0.408 which is greater than 0.093 + 0.139 = 0.232, meaning the former V/C ratios are
the critical movements. Note that since the through movements and the right turn movement can be
made at the same time, only the larger of these two is critical.
P Sum the critical movement values determined above. In the sample, this would be
0.076+0.345+0.175+0.232=0.828.
Q Add in the time allowance for lost time/yellow clearance. This will always be 0.100.
R Sum the critical movement values and the yellow clearance and indicate the level of service. In the
sample, 0.828 + 0.100 = 0.928. This would be a level of service “E”.
S A M P L E
CY W/OUT PROJECT CY WITH PROJECT CY+ PROJECT+ACCUMALATIVE
PROJECTS
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU
INTERSECTION
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM
SIGNIFICANT
IMAPCT?
ALTNTIC AT
HELLMAN
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
GARVEY
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
PCY W/OUT PROJECT PCY WITH PROJECT PCY+ PROJECT+ACCUMALATIVE PROJECTS
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU
INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM
SIGNIFICANT IMAPCT?
ALTNTIC AT
HELLMAN
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
GARVEY
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
GPTY W/OUT PROJECT GPTY WITH PROJECT GPTY+ PROJECT+ACCUMALATIVE PROJECTS
AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU AM PEAK PM PEAK CHANGE IN ICU
INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS AM PM
SIGNIFICANT IMAPCT?
ALTNTIC AT
HELLMAN
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
GARVEY
W/OUT IMPRMT
WITH IMPRMT
CY CURRENT YEAR
PCY PROJECT COMLETION YEAR
GPTY GENERAL PLAN TARGET YEAR