10. Exhibit D.4 - EIR Appendices — Downey City Council, June 11, 2024 (part 12 of 13)

Michael Chapman, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
*Analysis following Lead in Paint by EMSL SOP/Determination of Environmental Lead by FLAA. Reporting limit is 0.010 % wt based on the minimum sample weight per our SOP. Unless noted, results in this report are not blank corrected. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. "<" (less than) result signifies that the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Measurement of uncertainty is available upon request. The QC data associated with the sample results included in this report meet the recovery and precision requirements unless specifically indicated otherwise.

Definitions of modifications are available upon request.

Samples analyzed by LA Testing Huntington Beach, CA AIHA-LAP, LLC--ELLAP Accredited #101650, CA ELAP 1406 Initial report from 01/23/2017 13:35:40
ConcentrationAnalyzed RDL LeadClient SampleDescription Collected Test Report: Lead in Paint Chips by Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B)* LA Testing
5431 Industrial Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone/Fax: (714) 828-4999 / (714) 828-4944
http://www.LATesting.com [email protected]
Attn: Bob Pilzer
SCS Engineers
3900 Kilroy Airport Way
Suite 100
Long Beach, CA 90806
Received: 01/18/17 10:55 AM
01216368.00/ Task 2/ Downey
Fax: (562) 427-0805
Phone: (562) 426-9544
Project:
1/10/2017Collected:
331701211
CustomerID: SCSE34
CustomerPO:

ProjectID:

LA Testing Order:

Site: Office Area
<0.010% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0012

0.0101/10/201712 % wt
Site: Office Area
<0.010% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0013

0.0101/10/201713 % wt
Site: Office 1st floor

0.11% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0014

0.0101/10/201714 % wt
Site: Office 2nd floor

0.24% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0015

0.0101/10/201715 % wt
Site: Office Area

0.029% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0016

0.0101/10/201716 % wt
Site: Office Area
<0.010% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0017

0.0101/10/201717 % wt
Site: Office Area
<0.010% wt1/19/2017
331701211-0018

0.0101/10/201718 % wt

Page 2 of 2 ends

Definitions of modifications are available upon request.

Samples analyzed by LA Testing Huntington Beach, CA AIHA-LAP, LLC--ELLAP Accredited #101650, CA ELAP 1406 Initial report from 01/23/2017 13:35:40
OrderID: 331701211

Page 1 ends

3 OrderID: 331701211

Page 2 ends

3 OrderID: 331701211

Page 3 ends

3 Job Number Order Date Client
86234 01/13/2017 SCS
Number of Pages 2
Date Received 01/13/2017
Date Reported 01/18/2017
SCS Engineers
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 100
Long Beach, CA 90806-6816
Project ID:

Project Name:
01216368.00,TASK 2
Prolosis Downey Industrial Ctr
Ordered By
Attention: Bob Pilzer
Telephone: (562)426-9544
Enclosed please find results of analyses of 4 water samples which were analyzed as specified on the attached chain of custody. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Site: 9300-9402 Hallroad+9301-9399
Stewart & Orv Rd
Downey, CA 90241
2834 & 2908 North Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 • DOHS NO: 1541, LACSD NO: 10181 Tel: (888) 288-AETL • (818) 845-8200 • Fax: (818) 845-8840 • www.aetlab.com American Environmental Testing Laboratory Inc.

Cyrus Razmara, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director
Approved By:Checked By:

Job Number Order Date Client
86234 01/13/2017 SCS
Project ID: 01216368.00,TASK 2
Date Received 01/13/2017
Date Reported 01/18/2017
SCS Engineers
3900 Kilroy Airport Way Suite 100
Long Beach, CA 90806-6816
Ordered By
Attention: Bob Pilzer
Telephone: (562)426-9544
Page: 1 A
AETL received 4 samples with the following specification on 01/13/2017.

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

CASE NARRATIVE
2834 & 2908 North Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 • DOHS NO: 1541, LACSD NO: 10181 Tel: (888) 288-AETL • (818) 845-8200 • Fax: (818) 845-8840 • www.aetlab.com American Environmental Testing Laboratory Inc.

Lab ID Sample ID Sample Date Matrix Quantity Of Containers 86234.01 01 01/10/2017 Aqueous 1
86234.02 02 01/10/2017 Aqueous 1
86234.03 03 01/10/2017 Aqueous 1
86234.04 04 01/10/2017 Aqueous 1
Method ^ Submethod Priority TAT UnitsReq Date
200.8 ^ PB 2 Normal ug/L 01/20/2017
The samples were analyzed as specified on the enclosed chain of custody.

No analytical non-conformances were encountered.

Cyrus Razmara, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director
Approved By:Checked By:

QC Batch No: 0113161C1
86234 01/13/2017 SCS
AETL Job Number Submitted Client
9300-9402 Hallroad+9301-9399
Stewart & Orv Rd
Downey, CA 90241
SCS Engineers
3900 Kilroy Airport Way
Suite 100
Long Beach, CA 90806-6816
Project ID:

Project Name:
01216368.00,TASK 2
Prolosis Downey Industrial Ctr
2Page:

Ordered By
Attn: Bob Pilzer
Site

ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Telephone: (562)426-9544
Method: 200.8, Lead by ICP/MS
2834 & 2908 North Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 • DOHS NO: 1541, LACSD NO: 10181 Tel: (888) 288-AETL • (818) 845-8200 • Fax: (818) 845-8840 • www.aetlab.com American Environmental Testing Laboratory Inc.

Date Sampled 01/10/201701/10/201701/10/201701/10/2017
Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1 Units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
Matrix Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous
Date Analyzed 01/16/2017 01/16/2017 01/16/2017 01/16/2017 01/16/2017 Date Prepared 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01/13/2017 01 04 0302Client Sample I.D.

Analytes MDL Results Results Results Results ResultsPQL Preparation Method 200.8 200.8 200.8 200.8 200.8
Our Lab I.D. 86234.02 86234.03 86234.0486234.01Method Blank

0.5Lead 0.5 ND 2.09 ND 1.09 0.946
Analytes
Sample MSMS MS MS DUP MS DUP MS DUP RPD MS/MSD MS RPD
Result RecovConcen % REC Concen Recov % REC % % Limit % Limit

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
QC Batch No: 0113161C1; Dup or Spiked Sample: 86260.1; LCS: Clean Water; QC Prepared: 01/13/2017; QC Analyzed: 01/16/2017; Units: ug/L
Lead 80-120 <15 4.85 10.0 14.7 98.5 10.0 14.7 98.5 <1 Analytes

LCS LCS LCS LCS DUP LCS DUP LCS DUP LCS RPD LCS/LCSD LCS RPD Concen % RECRecov Concen Recov % REC % REC % Limit % Limit QC Batch No: 0113161C1; Dup or Spiked Sample: 86260.1; LCS: Clean Water; QC Prepared: 01/13/2017; QC Analyzed: 01/16/2017; Units: ug/L
Lead <15 10.0 10.3 103 10.0 10.5 105 1.9 80-120

Attachment 2

SCS Licenses

Appendix I
Low Impact Development Plan
Low Impact Development Plan
(LID Plan)
Project Name:

Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Prepared for:

Prologis, Inc.
9301 Stewart and Gray Road
Downey, CA 90241

Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn & Associates
1100 Town And Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 939-1030

PE Stamp & Sign Here
June 2021
Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray
Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my jurisdiction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathered the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Owner’s Name:

Company: Prologis, Inc.

Address:

Email:

Telephone No:

Signature: Date:

Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray
Engineer’s Certification
Preparer (Engineer) Certification
Engineer’s Name: Hunter Starkey
Engineer’s Title: P.E.

Company: Kimley-Horn & Associates
Address: 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 Email: [email protected]
Telephone No: 714-705-1360
I hereby certify that this Low Impact Development Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R4-2012-0175, of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Engineer’s
Signature Date
Place
Stamp
Here

Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray
Table of Contents
Table of Contents

1. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Project Category ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Hydromodification Analysis ......................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Property Ownership/Management .............................................................................................. 5

2. Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................................. 6

2.1. Site Design ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. BMP Selection .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1. Infiltration BMPs .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2. Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs ............................................................................................... 8

2.2.3. Alternative Compliance BMPs ..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.4. Treatment Control BMPs ........................................................................................................... 11

2.2.5. Hydromodification Control BMPs .............................................................................................. 12

2.2.6. Non-structural Source Control BMPs ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.7. Structural Source Control BMPs ................................................................................................. 14

Attachments
Attachment A ...................................... ................................ ................................ ................... Calculations Attachment B ...................................... ................................ ........................... LID Exhibit and BMP Details Attachment C ....................................... ................................ ................................ ......... Construction Plans Attachment D ...................................... ................................ ........ Master Covenant and Agreement (MCA) Attachment E ....................................... ................................ ...... Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Attachment F ....................................... ................................ ............................. Geotechnical Investigation Attachment G ...................................... ................................ ................................ .... Educational Materials Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 1 ends

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1. PROJECT CATEGORY

Category YES NO

1. Development a of a new project equal to 1 acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area b

2. Development a of a new industrial park with 10,000 square feet or more of surface area c

3. Development a of a new commercial mall with 10,000 square feet or more surface area c

4. Development a of a new retail gasoline outlet with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c

5. Development a of a new restaurant (SIC 5812) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c

6. Development a of a new parking lot with either 5,000 ft2 or more of impervious area b or with 25 or more parking spaces

7. Development a of a new automotive service facility (SIC 5013, 5014, 5511, 5541, 7532- 7534 and 7536-7539) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c

8. Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to a Significant Ecological Area (SEA),d where the development will:
a. Discharge stormwater runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and
b. Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious area b

9. Redevelopment e of 5,000 square feet or more in one of the categories listed above If yes, list redevelopment category here: Office building

10. Redevelopment e of 10,000 square feet or more to a Single Family Home, without a change in landuse.
a Development includes any construction or demolition activity, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation or any other activity that results in land disturbance.
b Surfaces that do not allow stormwater runoff to percolate into the ground. Typic al impervious surfaces include: concrete, asphalt, roofing materials, etc.
c The surface area is the total footprint of an area. Not to include the cumulative area above or below the ground surface. d An area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and would be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Also, an area designated by the City as approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. e Land-disturbing activities that result in the creation, addition, or replacement of a certain amount of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include modifications to existing single family structures, or emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety.

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 2 ends

1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Address: 9301 Stewart and Gray Road, Downey, CA 90241 Total Project Area (ft2): 1,270,434
Total Project Area (Ac): 29.2
Percentage of disturbed area of the total area: 100%

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Condition Area (Ac) Percentage (%)
Pervious Area: 0.47 1.6
Impervious Area: 28.73 98.4

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Condition Area (Ac) Percentage (%)
Pervious Area: 1.60 5.5
Impervious Area: 27.6 94.5

SITE CHARACTERISTICS

DRAINAGE

PATTERNS/CONNECTIONS

Existing:

In the existing condit ion, runoff flows away from the existing building s and sheet flows from north to south.

Proposed:

In the proposed condition, improvements include construction of new industrial buildings, parking lots and landscape islands. There will be two on-site drainage management area (DMA) graded for the site. Infiltration has been determined to be infeasible for this project due to contaminated soils on-site. The runoff from the DMAs will be collected via surface runoff into a series of drop inlets that will rou te to an underground detention vault for stage and a proposed WetlandMOD system unit for treatment. The treated flow will be pumped off -site to spill to grade at the driveway and mimic the drainage pattern in existing conditions.

DMA 1 is roughly half of the western portion of the site. Storm water runoff will sheet flow into one of the drop inlets on site . The inlet and storm drain system will transport the storm water southerly into a detention chamber and the proposed WetlandMOD system unit located Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 3 ends

in the southwest corner of the parking lot and the southwest landscaping island.

DMA 2 is roughly half of the eastern portion of the site. Storm water runoff will sheet flow into one of the drop inlets in the DMA. The inlet and storm drain system will trans port the storm water southerly into a detention chamber and the proposed WetlandMOD system unit located in the southwest corner of the parking lot in a landscaping island in the southeast corner.

DMA 1 – 14.50 Ac
DMA 2 – 14.66 Ac

NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project involves the resurfacing of a parking lot and the construction of a new office building and parking lot. All existing site paving will be demolished and reconstructed per the geotechnical recommendations.

OFFSITE RUNON

No offsite runon

UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

INFORMATION

Stormwater quality control measures are not anticipated to conflict with proposed and/or existing utilities.

SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREAS
(SEAS)

N/A

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 4 ends

1.3. HYDROMODIFICATION ANALYSIS
DOES THE PROPOSED PROJECT FALL INTO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES? CHECK YES/NO. YES NO

1. Project is a redevelopment that decreases the effective impervious area compared to the pre-project conditions.

Describe:

Pervious area will increase in the proposed conditions.

2. Project is a redevelopment that increases the infiltration capacity of pervious areas compared to the pre-project conditions.

Describe:

Infiltration is infeasible due to the contaminated soils on site.

3. Project discharges directly or via a storm drain to a sump, lake, area under tidal influence, into a waterway that has a 100-year peak flow (Q100) of 25,000 cfs or more.

Describe:

The DMA discharges into a municipal storm drain system in the public street.

4. Project discharges directly or via a storm drain into concrete or otherwise engineered (not natural) channels (e.g., channelized or armored with rip rap, shotcrete, etc.), which, in turn, discharge into receiving water that is not susceptible to hydromodification impacts.

Describe:

The project discharges into the San Gabriel River.

HYDROMODIFICATION ANALYSIS
Pervious area is increasing, exempt from hydromodication requirements.

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 5 ends

1.4. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT
OWNER

INFORMATION

No infrastructure is required to be transferred to public agencies currently. There are currently no street, road, or highway projects that are planned and const ructed as a part of this WQMP.

Property Owner Information
Name:

Company: Prologis, Inc.

Email:

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 6 ends

2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)

2.1. SITE DESIGN
85TH PERCENTILE, 24-

HOUR STORM DEPTH

1.00 inch

SITE DESIGN

Infiltration has been determined to be infeasible for this project due to contaminated soils.

BMP LIST

DMA

DESIGNATION

ACREAGE
(AC)

STORM WATER

QUALITY DESIGN
VOLUME
(SWQVD, CF)

BMP TYPE MINIMUM BMP
VOLUME

BMP VOLUME

PROVIDED
1 14.50 44,893

Bioclean
Wetland MOD-
22-29-V
44,893 CF *1.5 =
67,340 CF 67,340 CF
2 14.66 45,388

Bioclean
Wetland MOD-
22-29-V
45,388 CF *1.5 =
68,082 CF 68,082 CF
Total = 29.16 Ac

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 7 ends

2.2. BMP SELECTION

2.2.1. INFILTRATION BMPS

NAME INCLUDED

Bioretention without underdrains
Infiltration Trench
Infiltration Basin
Drywell
Proprietary Subsurface Infiltration Gallery
Permeable Pavement (concrete, asphalt, pavers)
Other: Bioretention Basin
Other:

DESCRIPTION

N/A

CALCULATIONS

N/A

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 8 ends

2.2.2. RAINWATER HARVEST AND USE BMPS

NAME INCLUDED

Above-ground cisterns and basins
Underground detention
Other:

Other:

DESCRIPTION

Rainwater and Harvest Use BMPs are infeasible at this site . On-site landscaping is limited and

CALCULATIONS

N/A

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 9 ends

2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE BMPS

BIORETENTION BMPS
(If Infiltration BMPs and Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs are Infeasible)

NAME INCLUDED

Bioretention with underdrains (i.e. planter box, rain garden, etc.) Constructed Wetland
Vegetated Swale
Vegetated Filter Strip
Tree-Well Filter
Other:

Other:

DESCRIPTION

The stormwater collection and treatment system consists of a detention vault, a Bioclean Wetland MOD-22-27-V for DMA 1 and a Bioclean Wetland MOD-22- 28-V for DMA 2, and a Wetland MOD Discharge Pump Station. This setup is the same for D MA 1 and DMA 2 , other than the differing Wetland MODs. Water enters the detention chamber through the on -site inlet s, is routed to the storage vault and then enters the WetlandMOD for treatment and is pumped to spill to grade at driveway.

The WetlandMOD consists of a manufactured p lanter box with engineering soil, media, planting, and an underdrain. The engineered soil is per the LA County Manual Attachment H specified media.

The system has been sized for a 96-hour drawdown time. Since the inlet orifice has been sized to threat the 85th percentile storm, in the event of a large storm event storm water will not be allowed to enter the system and will sheetflow off-site.

CALCULATIONS

Calculations were done through Hydr ocalc 1.0.3. The calculations were done by using the 85th perc entile and results can be found in Attachment A:

Calculations.

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 10 ends

OFFSITE BMPS
(If Infiltration BMPs, Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs, and Bioretention BMPs are Infeasible)

NAME INCLUDED

Offsite Infiltration
Ground Water Replenishment Projects
Offsite Project - Retrofit Existing Development
Regional Storm Water Mitigation Program
Other:

Other:

DESCRIPTION

N/A

CALCULATIONS

N/A

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 11 ends

2.2.4. TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS

NAME INCLUDED

Media Filter
Filter Insert
CDS Unit
Other:

Other:

DESCRIPTION

N/A
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 12 ends

2.2.5. HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL BMPS

NAME INCLUDED

Infiltration System
Above-ground Cistern
Above-ground Basin
Underground Detention
Other:

Other:

DESCRIPTION

N/A

CALCULATIONS

N/A

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 13 ends

2.2.6. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS

NAME CHECK ONE
Included Not Applicable
Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants
Activity Restrictions
Common Area Landscape Management
Common Area Litter Control
Housekeeping of Loading Docks
Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 14 ends

2.2.7. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS

NAME CHECK ONE
Included Not Applicable
Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage
Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction
Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction
Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation
Loading docks
Maintenance bays
Vehicle wash areas
Outdoor processing areas
Equipment wash areas/racks
Fueling areas
Hillside landscaping

Page 15 ends

Attachment A
Calculations

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/ORA_LDEV/194187007 - Prologis Downey/Reports/LID/Appendices/Attachment A - Calculations/1_DCV DMA 1.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Downey LID
Subarea ID DMA 1
Area (ac) 14.5
Flow Path Length (ft) 517.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.008
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0
Percent Impervious 0.95
Soil Type 6
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2749
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.86
Time of Concentration (min) 26.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4281
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.4281
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.0306
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 44892.3861

Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/ORA_LDEV/194187007 - Prologis Downey/Reports/LID/Appendices/Attachment A - Calculations/2_DCV DMA 2.pdf Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name Downey LID
Subarea ID DMA 2
Area (ac) 14.66
Flow Path Length (ft) 391.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.011
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0
Percent Impervious 0.95
Soil Type 6
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 1.0 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.311
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.86
Time of Concentration (min) 20.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9207
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 3.9207
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 1.042
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 45387.5901

Blue = User Input
Gray = Formula
Green = Proceed
Red = Redo
WetlandMOD Size - DMA 1 WM-22-27-V
Media Thickness (in) 24
Treatment Volume (CF) 67340
Drain Down Time (hrs) 96
Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 12
Number of Row(s) 4
RIM/FG elevation 0.00
WM IE Out -5.00
IE Return Pipe -0.83
Unit Depth (ft) 5.00 Max depth = 5', height increments = 6" Return/Overflow Pipe (in) 0 Includes 1" spacing above return pipe Operating head (ft) 4.17 Standard operating head = RIM - 9.5" Treatment Flow (gpm) 87.45
Media Loading Rate (gpm/sf) 0.12
Requried Media Area (sf) 728.74
Cage Height (ft) 4.75
HGL Height (ft) 4.17 Set to equal cell D20 or D22
Cage Length/ Row (ft) 22.0
Drain Down Time in hours
Provding 3" Multch on top
Reduced by 4" from FS
Length of cage in each row
Includes 1" grout above pipe
If using pump upstream
LA County 24"; Bay Area 18"
Provided by EOR/ DMA area(s)
LA 5-10in/hr; Bay Area 5-12in/hr
Add Row(s) to change footprint
RIM/FG to Outlet pipe
WetlandMOD - 24" Media Thickness, Volume Based
Project ID: 12627
Project Name: Downey Industrial
City, State, ZIP: Downey, CA
Date:

User Input Data
Treatment Data
Cage, HGL Height
treatment volume x 448.8 =
in/hr / 100 =
treatment flow / loading rate =

Page 1 of 2 ends

Provided Media Surface Area (sf) 733.33
Discharge Rate (cfs) 0.196
Orifice Diameter per Row (in) 0.95
Length Media Row(s) (ft) 23.0
Length of Unit (ft) 27.0
Width of Unit (ft) 22.000
WM Media Volume (cy) 61.93
Gravel Layer Volume (cy) 12.90
Unit discharge rate
Length of Media row + Baffle wall
Pre-treatment + Filtration chm.

Total width of unit
Feel free to fax or email proposed sizing calculations to BioClean, for assistance with sizing, compliance, and design.

Phone: 760.433.7640 |Fax: 760.433.3176
Email: [email protected]
Based on Gravel Layer surface area
Final Checks
Unit Dimensions
Media, Gravel Volume
Provided >= Required surface area, unit dimensions in good standing.

Orifice Diameter in inches

Page 2 of 2 ends

Blue = User Input
Gray = Formula
Green = Proceed
Red = Redo
WetlandMOD Size - DMA 1 WM-22-28-V
Media Thickness (in) 24
Treatment Volume (CF) 68082
Drain Down Time (hrs) 96
Infiltration Rate (in/hr) 12
Number of Row(s) 4
RIM/FG elevation 0.00
WM IE Out -5.00
IE Return Pipe -0.83
Unit Depth (ft) 5.00 Max depth = 5', height increments = 6" Return/Overflow Pipe (in) 0 Includes 1" spacing above return pipe Operating head (ft) 4.17 Standard operating head = RIM - 9.5" Treatment Flow (gpm) 88.41
Media Loading Rate (gpm/sf) 0.12
Requried Media Area (sf) 736.77
Cage Height (ft) 4.75
HGL Height (ft) 4.17 Set to equal cell D20 or D22
Cage Length/ Row (ft) 23.0
Treatment Data
Cage, HGL Height
treatment volume x 448.8 =
in/hr / 100 =
treatment flow / loading rate =
City, State, ZIP: Downey, CA
Date:

User Input Data
WetlandMOD - 24" Media Thickness, Volume Based
Project ID: 12627
Project Name: Downey Industrial
LA County 24"; Bay Area 18"
Provided by EOR/ DMA area(s)
LA 5-10in/hr; Bay Area 5-12in/hr
Add Row(s) to change footprint
RIM/FG to Outlet pipe
Drain Down Time in hours
Provding 3" Multch on top
Reduced by 4" from FS
Length of cage in each row
Includes 1" grout above pipe
If using pump upstream

Page 1 of 2 ends

Provided Media Surface Area (sf) 766.67
Discharge Rate (cfs) 0.205
Orifice Diameter per Row (in) 0.97
Length Media Row(s) (ft) 24.0
Length of Unit (ft) 28.0
Width of Unit (ft) 22.000
WM Media Volume (cy) 64.74
Gravel Layer Volume (cy) 13.49
Feel free to fax or email proposed sizing calculations to BioClean, for assistance with sizing, compliance, and design.

Orifice Diameter in inches
Unit discharge rate
Length of Media row + Baffle wall
Pre-treatment + Filtration chm.

Total width of unit

Page 2 of 2 ends

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 16 ends

Attachment B
LID Exhibit and BMP Details

STEWART & GRAY RD.DOWNEY, CA 90241PROJECT ID: XXX765 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 200ORANGE, CA 92868(714) 939-1030 LEGEND
NORTH
X X
XXXX
XX

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 17 ends

Attachment C
Construction Plans

STEWART & GRAY RD.DOWNEY, CA 90241PROJECT ID: XXX765 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 200ORANGE, CA 92868(714) 939-1030

SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES
LEGEND
NORTH
X X
XXXX
XX
STEWART & GRAY RD.DOWNEY, CA 90241PROJECT ID: XXX765 THE CITY DRIVE, SUITE 200ORANGE, CA 92868(714) 939-1030 NORTH
X X
XXXX
XX
LEGEND
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 18 ends

Attachment D
Master Covenant Agreement (MCA)
(Example)

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Page 19 ends

Attachment E
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan

for
Prologis Industry Redevelopment
9301 Stewart and Gray Road
Downey, CA 90241

Operations and Maintenance Plan

BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Yes Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Educational material shall be provided to all employees and tenants.

Within 30 days of tenant occupancy
and annually thereafter.

Owner
Yes Activity Restriction
The owner shall develop activity restrictions to minimize the threat of hazardous waste or contamination into the storm drainage system. Car washing is not allowed on-site at any time.

Ongoing; Yearly for all employees
and within 30 days of hire date for
new employees.

Owner
Yes Common Area Landscape Management
Training on landscape management consistent with County Water Conservation Resolution or City equivalent, plus Management Guidelines for Fertilizers (DAMP Section 5.5) shall be conducted for all new field landscape maintenance personnel.

Twice Monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule.

Owner
Yes BMP Maintenance
Maintenance of BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP.

Twice Monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule
Owner
No Title 22 CCR Compliance
N/A

N/A N/A
No Spill Contingency Plan
N/A

N/A N/A
No Underground Storage Tank Compliance
N/A

N/A N/A
No Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance
N/A

N/A N/A
No Uniform Fire Code Implementation
N/A

N/A N/A
Operations and Maintenance Plan

Page 2 of 7 ends

BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes Common Area Litter Control
Litter patrol, violations investigation, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities.

Weekly Owner
Yes Employee Training
Education programs shall be implemented as they apply to future employees and training of current employees.

Ongoing; Yearly for all employees
and within 30 days of hire date for
new employees.

Owner
No Housekeeping of Loading Docks
N/A

N/A N/A
Yes Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
Litter and debris removal, illicit discharge violations investigation and reporting shall be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities.

Twice a month to remove debris and
after every major storm event
Owner
Yes Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots
Private streets and parking area within the project shall be swept at a minimum frequency of once a month.

Monthly Owner
No Retail Gasoline Outlets
N/A

N/A N/A
Structural Source Control BMPs
Yes Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage
All proposed inlets shall be marked with the appropriate “No Dumping. Drains to Ocean.” Stencil. The stencils must be repainted when they become illegible, but at a minimum once every five years.

Inspect stenciling for legibility no later than the beginning of the rainy season on October 1st each year. Stenciling must be re-stenciled to maintain legibility as necessary and when deemed necessary by the local inspecting agency Yearly Owner
Operations and Maintenance Plan

Page 3 of 7 ends

BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name
and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency
and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes Design and Construct Outdoor Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction
Proper design of outdoor storage areas for materials reduces opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter the stormwater conveyance system. Materials may be in the form of raw products, by-products, finished products, and waste products. The type of pollutants associated with the materials will vary depending on the type of commercial or industrial activity.

Initial Design Owner
Yes Design and Construct Trash and Waste Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction
The trash and waste storage areas will be inspected in conjunction with Litter Control on a weekly basis. The area will be inspected for loose debris and dumpster capacity. If dumpsters are overflowing more frequent pick-ups shall be arranged.

Initial Design, Weekly Inspections Owner
Yes Use Efficient Irrigation Systems & Landscape Design Verify that landscape design continues to function properly by correctly adjusting to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, and day or night time temperatures.

Twice Monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule.

Owner
No Protect Slopes and Channels and Provide Energy Dissipation N/A

N/A N/A
No Loading Docks
N/A

N/A N/A
No Maintenance Bays
N/A

N/A N/A
No Vehicle Wash Areas
N/A

N/A N/A
Operations and Maintenance Plan

Page 4 of 7 ends

N/A N/A
No Equipment Wash Areas
N/A

N/A N/A
No Fueling Areas
N/A

N/A N/A
No Hillside Landscaping
N/A

N/A N/A
No Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas
N/A

N/A N/A
No Community Car Wash Racks
N/A

N/A N/A
Treatment Control BMPs
Yes WetlandMOD
The WetlandMOD pre-filter, separation chamber, and Biofiltration media are all designed to allow for the use of vacuum removal of captured pollutants and spent filter media by centrifugal compressor vacuum units without causing damage to the filter, or during normal cleaning and maintenance. Filters and chambers can be cleaned from the finished surface through a standard manhole, hatch, or grate access. Refer to the following BioClean WetlandMOD O&M plan.

Twice Monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule
Owner
Yes Bioclean Detention Vault
The underground detention, retention, or infiltration system can be inspected through visual observation without entry into the system. All necessary pre- inspection steps must be carried out before inspection occurs, especially traffic control and other safety measures to protect the inspector and nearby pedestrians from any dangers associated with an open access hatch or manhole. Refer to the following BioClean Detention Vault O&M plan.

Twice Monthly or according to an
established maintenance schedule
Owner
Exhibit A, Operations and Maintenance Plan

Page 5 of 7 ends

Required Permits
This section must list any permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Possible examples are:
• Permits for connection to sanitary sewer
• Permits from California Department of Fish and Game
• Encroachment permits
If no permits are required, a statement to that effect should be made.

Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached.

RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION

Today’s Date:

Name of Person Performing Activity
(Printed):

Signature:

BMP Name
(As Shown in O&M Plan)
Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Activity Performed

Maintenance Overview –

A. Every installed WetlandMOD unit is to be maintained by the Supplier, or a Supplier approved contractor. The cost of this service varies among providers.

B. The WetlandMOD is a multi-stage self-contained treatment train for stormwater treatment. Each stage protects subsequent stages from clogging. Stages include:
screening, separation, and Biofiltration. The biofiltration stage contains various types of vegetation which will require annual evaluation and trimming.

1. Clean Bio Clean® Pre-Filter Screen – Screening is provided by well proven continuous modular screen filter. The filter removes gross solids, including litter, and sediments greater than 5 mm. This procedure is easily done by hand or with a small industrial vacuum device.

2. Clean Separation (sediment) Chamber – separation occurs in the pre-treatment chamber. This chamber targets TSS, and particulate metals and nutrients. This procedure can be performed with a standard vacuum truck. This chamber is located directly under the manhole, hatch, or grate access cover.

3. Trim Vegetation – The system utilizes multiple plants in the biofiltration chamber to provide enhanced treatment. The vegetation will need to be maintained (trimmed) as needed. This can be done as part of the project normal landscape maintenance. NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE USED IN THIS CHAMBER.

4. Evaluate Biofiltration Media Flow Hydraulic Conductivity – The system’s flow can be assessed from the discharge. This should be done during a rain event. By viewing into the discharge pipe, the flow out of the system can be observed. If little to no flow is observed, this is a sign of potential Biofiltration media maintenance needs.

5. Biofiltration Media Replacement –This filter contains a mix that supports abundant plant life. Replacement of the media is simple. Removal of spent media can be done with a shovel and a vacuum truck.

C. The WetlandMOD pre-filter, separation chamber, and Biofiltration media are all designed to allow for the use of vacuum removal of captured pollutants and spent filter media by centrifugal compressor vacuum units without causing damage to the filter, or during normal cleaning and maintenance. Filters and chambers can be cleaned from the finished surface through a standard manhole, hatch, or grate access.

Maintenance Procedures –

1. Clean Bio Clean® Pre-Filter – Bio Clean recommends the pre-filter be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once every six months. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. This procedure takes approximately 15 minutes.

1. Remove grate, manhole, or hatch to gain access to the pre-filter insert. Where possible, the maintenance should be performed from the ground surface.

Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an inlet vault may require certification in confined space training.

2. Remove all trash, debris, organics, and sediments collected by the pre-filter.

Removal of the trash and debris can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screen of the pre-filter.

3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to an approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. Hazardous material can only be handled by a certified hazardous waste trained person (minimum of OSHA 24-hour hazardous waste worker (hazwoper) training).

2. Clean Separation (sediment) Chamber – Bio Clean recommends the separation chamber be inspected and cleaned a minimum of once a year. The procedure is easily done with the use of any standard vacuum truck. This procedure takes approximately 30 minutes.

1. Remove grate, manhole, or hatch to gain access to the separation chamber.

2. Where possible, the maintenance should be performed from the ground surface. Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an inlet vault may require certification in confined space training.

3. With a pressure washer, spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and pre- filters.

4. Vacuum out separation chamber and remove all accumulated debris and sediments.

5. Replace grate, manhole, or hatch cover.

6. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

3. Trim Vegetation – Bio Clean recommends the plants/vegetation be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a year. It is also recommended that the plants receive the same care as other landscaped areas. Note: No fertilizer is to be used on this area.

Trimming of vegetation takes approximately 15 minutes.

4. Evaluate Biofiltration Media Flow Hydraulic Conductivity – Bio Clean recommends system flow be inspected and observed a minimum of once a year. This needs to be done during a rain event. Inspection and Observation takes approximately 5 minutes.

1. Observe discharge out of system.

2. Observe the level of flow from the bottom of the pipe.

3. If flow is steady and high, the system is operating normally.

4. If little or no flow is observed exiting the discharge pipe, possible maintenance to the Biofiltration media may be needed. Contact Bio Clean for further assistance.

5. Biofiltration Media Replacement – Bio Clean recommends the Biofiltration media be replaced a minimum of once every 20 years. Inspection takes approximately 15 minutes.

Replacement of rock media takes approximately 6 hours and requires a vacuum truck.

1. Remove plants from the Biofiltration chamber.

2. Use a vacuum truck or shovel to remove all wetland media.

3. Spray down the walls and floor of the chamber and vacuum out any accumulated pollutants.

4. Spray down perforated piping and netting of flow matrix and the inflow and outflow end to remove any accumulated pollutants.

5. Vacuum out any standing water from the media removal and ensure the chamber is clean.

6. Use a small backhoe to fill chamber with new media. Call Bio Clean for media delivery information.

7. Plant new vegetation in the same configuration and quantity as old vegetation.

8. Spray down the plants and media with water to saturate.

9. Continue supplemental irrigation (spray or drip) for at least 90 days.

6. Other Maintenance Notes –

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, the maintenance operator shall prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record shall include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanism.

2. The owner shall retain the maintenance/inspection record for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records shall be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.

3. Any person performing maintenance activities must have completed a minimum of OSHA 24-hour hazardous waste worker (hazwoper) training.

4. Remove access manhole lid or grate to gain access to filter screens and sediment chambers. Where possible, the maintenance should be performed

from the ground surface. Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an inlet vault requires certification in confined space training.

5. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

6. The hydrocarbon boom is classified as hazardous material and will have to be picked up and disposed of as hazardous waste. Hazardous material can only be handled by a certified hazardous waste trained person (minimum 24-hour hazwoper).

www.modularwetlands.com

Inspection Form

Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]

For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes
Yes
Depth:

Yes No
Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.):

Other Inspection Items:

Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to
the left.
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands System

Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.

Chamber:

Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity:

Working Condition:

Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name
Project Address
Inspection Checklist
CommentsNo
Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.

Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.

Sediment / Silt / Clay
Trash / Bags / Bottles
Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage
Waste: Plant Information
No Cleaning Needed
Recommended Maintenance
Additional Notes:

Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming
Schedule Maintenance as Planned
Needs Immediate Maintenance

www.modularwetlands.com

Maintenance Report

Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]

For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes
Site
Map #
Comments:
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Media
Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter
Condition
Long:

MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Total Debris
Accumulation
Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)
Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)
Lat: MWS
Catch Basins
GPS Coordinates
of Insert
Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing
Trash
Accumulation
Foliage
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation
Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands System

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Attachment F
Geotechnical Investigation

Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
Prologis Warehouse Stewart and Gray

Attachment G
Educational Materials

Appendix J
Land Use Plan Policy Consistency
Analysis Tables
J-1
Appendix J
Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables

Table J-1
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SCAG CONNECT SOCAL 2020-2045 RTP/SCS GOALS

RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency

1. Encourage regional economic prosperity and
global competitiveness
Consistent. The Project would provide an industrial use at a site zoned for and currently used for industrial
uses. The area roadways proposed for use for Project
truck traffic are designated truck routes in the City. The Project would contribute to overall regional economic
prosperity by providing additional employment
opportunities, utilizing local vendors and support
service providers, and increasing the local tax base
through sales.

2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and goods
Consistent. The Project consists of warehouse uses on
an existing developed site consistent with land use and zoning designations. The Project would provide a
fulfillment center/warehouse in close proximity to
regional transportation corridors to facilitate goods
movement. Additionally, the Project would utilize an
already developed site along one of the City’s
designated truck routes.

3. Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation system
Consistent. The Project would utilize an already
developed site along one of the City’s designated truck routes in close proximity to several regional freeways, including Interstates 605, 5, 105, and 710.

4. Increase person and goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation system
Consistent. The Project would utilize an already
developed site along one of the City’s designated truck routes and provide a fulfillment center/warehouse in
close proximity to regional transportation corridors to facilitate goods movement.

5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve
air quality
Consistent. The Project would be designed to achieve
2022 Title 24 energy standards, at a minimum, through
implementation of energy-reduction measures, such as
energy-efficient lighting and appliances, water-efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures, and water-efficient
landscaping and irrigation. The Project would comply
with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) rules to reduce air pollution emissions from
construction and operation of the Project, including
rules 402 (Nuisance), 403 (fugitive dust), and 1113
(architectural coatings).

6. Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent. The Project is an industrial use on a site designated and zoned for industrial uses. As
demonstrated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project
would not result in significant impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors related to health and criteria air
pollutants. The Project also would not create a

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-2
RTP/SCS Goal Project Consistency
significant hazard to the community through the use of
acutely hazardous materials. No adverse health impacts
to the community related to on-site contaminated soils
or hazardous building materials would occur due to the
ongoing remediation that would continue upon Project
implementation under the oversight of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well as
mitigation measures identified in Section 4,7, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials. Environmental impacts and
benefits resulting from the Project would occur to all
populations within the surrounding community and
would not fall disproportionately on areas of the
community considered disadvantaged. As such, the
Project would not detract from the health and equity of the community.

7. Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network
Consistent. The Project would occur on a site zoned
and designated for industrial uses. The Project would
replace existing older industrial metal/brick buildings with a new, modern concrete tilt-up building that
would be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of Title 24, which regulates green building practices and includes standards for planning and
design, water efficiency, material conservation and
resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The
proposed building would incorporate several
sustainability features such as solar and electric vehicle infrastructure and would achieve a LEED Silver
certification. In addition, the Project site is in close proximity to several freeways to facilitate access and
use of the regional transportation network.

8. Leverage new transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in more efficient
travel
Consistent. The Project consists of an industrial use on a developed site zoned and designated for industrial
uses. The Project would include electric vehicle
charging infrastructure to support transportation
technologies that provide more efficient travel. The
Project also would implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program as mitigation
(refer to Section 4.11, Transportation, that would
include transportation programs such as ridesharing,
transit incentives, and bicycle facilities to reduce
regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improve
travel efficiency.

10. Promote conservation of natural and agricultural
lands and restoration of habitats
Consistent. The Project is located on an existing
industrial parcel that is completely developed and does not contain natural or agricultural lands, nor would it support restored habitat.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-3
Table J-2

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH DOWNEY GENERAL PLAN VISION
2025 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Land Use Element
Goal 1.1. Provide sufficient land areas for uses that
serve the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses.

Policy 1.1.1. Maintain a balance of land uses.
• Program 1.1.1.1. Discourage the over-concentration
of a particular land use that will preclude the
establishment of other uses needed to serve the
community.
• Program 1.1.1.3. Adopt floor-area ratios (FAR) or
comparable method to address building intensity for
each zoning classification.
• Program 1.1.1.4. Discourage non-industrial uses into
areas designated for industrial uses.

Consistent. The Project would continue the industrial
use of the Project site, consistent with the existing
General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations. The
Project site is located in an existing industrial area and would maintain the balance of land uses within the
City.

Goal 1.2. Advance livable community concepts.

Policy 1.2.1. Promote livable communities concepts
that allow added flexibility in addressing land use
needs.
• Program 1.2.1.1. Promote project designs that
reduce dependency on vehicles and promote
pedestrian, transit, and alternate modes of travel.
• Program 1.2.1.6. Promote the placement of
buildings at or near the public right-of-way with a
primary or secondary entryway facing the sidewalk.

Consistent. While the Project would include truck
traffic due to its warehouse uses, the Project does
include components in support of this goal and policy.

The Project site is located within one-quarter mile
three Metro bus lines. The Project includes improved
sidewalks with landscaping and parkway plantings
along Hall Road and Stewart and Gray Road for the
entire Project site frontage. Additionally, the proposed building would be placed near the public right-of-way
on Stewart and Gray Road, with a primary entrance
facing the sidewalk along Stewart and Gray Road.

Circulation Element
Goal 2.1. Increase the capacity of the existing street
system.

Policy 2.1.2. Promote improvements in the street
system through the development process.
• Program 2.1.2.3. Reduce the number of driveway
access points on streets.
• Program 2.1.2.5. Discourage projects that generate
high amounts of traffic onto local and collector
streets.
• Program 2.1.1.6. Identify and concentrate land uses
with high traffic generation near major
transportation corridors and public transit facilities.

Consistent. There are currently seven driveway access
points to the site. Four occur along Stewart and Gray
Road and three occur on Hall Road. The Project site
would reduce the number of driveway access points to
the site with two along Stewart and Gray Road and the
existing three along Hall Road. While the Project
would generate additional traffic trips, due to its
warehouse/logistics uses, the Project is located in
close proximity to several freeways (Interstates 605, 5 105, and 710), which would limit travel on local
roadways. Truck traffic would utilize designated truck
routes to access the Project site and freeways.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-4
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 2.2. Promote the use of alternative modes of
travel, other than single-occupant vehicles, to relieve traffic congestion.

Policy 2.2.1. Promote walking as an attractive
alternative to vehicular transportation.
• Program 2.2.1.1. Promote site development design
that is safe and convenient to pedestrians.
• Program 2.2.1.2. Provide sidewalks in new
development and major remodeling consistent with
the sidewalk Master Plan.

Consistent. Sidewalks are present on streets
surrounding the Project site, providing pedestrian
access to the site; however, the Project would provide
improved sidewalks with landscaping and parkway
plantings along Hall Road and Stewart and Gray Road
for the entire Project site frontage. The Project site is located within one-quarter mile of three Metro bus
lines, which would provide Project employees with
access to alternative transportation modes. The
Project would implement a TDM Program to reduce
transportation VMT impacts, which would include
measures to promote alternative transportation
modes.

Policy 2.2.2. Promote bicycling as an attractive
alternative to vehicular transportation.
• Program 2.2.2.3. Promote the provision of bicycle
racks at retail service and other businesses for use
by customers and employees.
• Program 2.2.2.4. Encourage the provision of
showers, changing rooms, and bicycle storage areas
at retail, office, industrial, and other businesses for use by employees.

Consistent. The Project would implement a TDM
Program to reduce transportation VMT impacts, which
would include measures to promote alternative
transportation modes, including the provision of
bicycle racks, bicycle storage areas, showers, and
changing rooms.

Goal 2.3. Reduce adverse impacts from truck traffic.

Policy 2.3.1. Promote the safe and efficient movement
of truck traffic through the City.
• Program 2.3.1.1. Enforce truck traffic to use
designated truck routes in the City.
• Program 2.3.1.5. Support truck mobility efforts to
keep container truck traffic traveling through the
region on freeways.

Consistent. The Project site is located in close
proximity to several freeways (Interstates 605, 5 105,
and 710) which would facilitate access to and use of
regional freeways. Trucks would utilize the City’s
designated truck routes to access the freeways.

The
designated truck routes in the area include Stewart
and Gray Road, which connects to both Woodruff
Avenue and Firestone Boulevard to the east, both of
which are also designated truck routes; Firestone
Boulevard provides direct access to I-605 east of the
Project site. Other designated truck routes include
Bellflower Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard to the
west of the Project site; Lakewood Boulevard provides
direct access to I-105 to the south of the Project site and to I-5 to the north of the Project site.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-5
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Policy 2.3.2. Minimize negative impacts associated
with truck traffic.
• Program 2.3.2.1. Discourage truck parking on public
streets.
• Program 2.3.2.2. Maintain landscape islands on
and/or adjacent to truck routes with mature
specimen fully grown landscape screens to minimize
noise, dust, and visual impacts.
• Program 2.3.2.3. Promote property development
designs along truck routes that minimize noise, dust,
and visual impacts through the use of berms,
landscape screening, walls, and other design
features.
• Program 2.3.2.4. Ensure that land uses generating
high amounts of truck traffic provide compensation
to the city for projected pavement wear of public
streets.

Consistent. The Project would provide 255 trailer
parking stalls, which is well in excess of the required 46 trailer stalls. Thus, the Project would not result in the need for truck parking on public streets. The
Project would include landscaping and parkway
plantings along Hall Road and Stewart and Gray Road
(a designated truck route) for the entire Project site
frontage. The Project would comply with City
requirements, including compensation for projected
pavement wear, if applicable.

Policy 2.3.3. Discourage land uses that generate high
amounts of truck traffic.
• Program 2.3.3.1. Discourage land uses that attract
high amounts of truck traffic without corresponding
benefits to the community.
• Program 2.3.3.2. Provide discretionary approvals for
land uses generating high amounts of truck traffic,
including general warehouses, truck parking, truck
company headquarters, and distribution centers.

Consistent. The Project consists of a new industrial
building intended to be used for logistics and
distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. The proposed facility is
intended to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Project would result in increased truck traffic
trips. Over a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to result in an increase of 167 passenger car equivalent
adjusted vehicles trips during a typical weekday,
consisting of approximately 84 more inbound trips and
84 more outbound trips. These Project trips would not
result in substantial congestion of local roadways. As
discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, analyzed
intersections in the Project vicinity that are part of the City’s Circulation Element roadway network would
operate at acceptable conditions consistent with
General Plan standards.

The Project would provide
additional industrial sector uses that provide goods
movement services and employment opportunities for
the community and region. The Project is subject to
the City’s discretionary approval process to identify
and minimize potential impacts.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-6
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 2.5. Minimize the impacts from the lack of
parking.

Policy 2.5.1 Provide for adequate parking supply to
meet parking demands.
• Program 2.5.1.4. Maximize off-street parking to
minimize demands on on-street parking.
• Program 2.5.1.5. Minimize parking demand spillover
effects onto adjacent streets and properties.
• Program 2.5.1.8. Promote safe and efficient design
for parking areas.
• Program 2.5.1.9. Provide adequate on-site loading
areas so that parking areas are not impacted by
loading activities.

Consistent. The Project would provide adequate on-
site parking in excess of City requirements such that it would not increase the demand for on-street parking.

The Project would require 670 parking stalls for the
proposed warehouse use (including the office portion
of the warehouse), and would provide 544 parking
stalls, plus an additional 139 stalls in lieu of trailer parking, resulting in a total of 683 parking stalls.

Additionally, required trailing parking is 46 trailer
parking stalls, but the Project would provide 255
trailer parking stalls.

Housing Element
No goals, policies, or programs from the Housing
Element are applicable to the proposed Project.

Conservation Element
Goal 4.1. Provide an adequate water supply for the
needs of residents, workers, and visitors to the City.

Policy 4.1.1. Promote conservation of water resources.
• Program 4.1.1.4. Encourage the use of reclaimed
water, or re-use of water on-site, for new and
redevelopment projects.
• Program 4.1.1.6. Promote drought-tolerant plants,
rain sensors, moisture sensors and other water
conservation methods for plant landscaping
projects.
• Program 4.1.1. 7. Promote water conserving
appliances, equipment, and plumbing fixtures for
new developments and remodels.

Consistent. The Project would comply with California
Code of Regulations Title 24, and would utilize low-
flow faucets, toilets, and irrigation. Drought-tolerant landscaping would be utilized in the Project design and would be installed around the building and at the
Project site’s perimeter.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-7
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 4.2. Prevent the contamination of groundwater.

Policy 4.2.1. Monitor and improve groundwater
quality.
• Program 4.2.1.3. Coordinate with local, regional,
state, and federal efforts to protect the groundwater
supply and enhance groundwater quality.
• Program 4.2.1.4. Discourage business practices and
land use classes that contribute to soil
contamination that degrade groundwater quality.

Consistent. The Project site is the subject of ongoing
groundwater monitoring, due to existing volatile
organic compound (VOC) contamination in the
groundwater beneath the Project site. Groundwater
monitoring wells are present at the Project site.

Ongoing monitoring and remediation would continue
upon Project implementation under the oversight of
the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
as well as implementation of mitigation measures
identified in Section 4,7, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, to improve groundwater quality. The
Project would develop and submit a project-specific
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to
comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction General Permit and would implement
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize
pollutant release during Project construction. Further, to reduce the potential for pollutants from operational activities to enter groundwater or surface waters, the
Project would implement measures in accordance
with local and regional water quality requirements,
including an on-site stormwater treatment system.

Goal 4.3. Reduce the contaminant level at beaches and
oceans.

Policy 4.3.1. Reduce the contaminant level of
stormwater and urban runoff generated within
Downey.
• Program 4.3.1.1. Provide treatment of runoff
generated by properties on-site before release into
the storm drain system.
• Program 4.3.1.4. Encourage proper storage and
handling of construction materials to avoid the
contact of pollutants with storm water runoff during
construction.

Consistent. The Project would incorporate treatment
of stormwater runoff. During construction, the Project
SWPPP would identify BMPs, which may include the
use of silt fences, sandbag barriers, and/or ground
covers to control stormwater runoff.

During the long-term operation of the Project, surface
runoff would be collected for the two drainage
management areas (DMAs) on the Project site, via a
series of drop inlets. Within each DMA, drop inlets
would route runoff to an underground detention vault
prior to entering an on-site stormwater treatment
system with a 96-hour drawdown time. After
treatment, flows would be pumped off-site to spill to
grade at the Project driveway, discharging into the City stormwater system.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-8
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 4.4. Preserve trees wherever possible.

Policy 4.4.1. Preserve trees on private and public
property.
• Program 4.4.1.1. Discourage the removal of trees on
private and public property.
• Program 4.4.1.2. Adopt a tree preservation
ordinance requiring a permit to remove mature
trees.

Consistent. The Project site is fully developed and
contains very few trees. Approximately half a dozen
trees are located in the northern portion of the site,
around the northern part of the building at 9300 Hall
Road. These trees would be removed to accommodate
the Project. Additional trees are present along the
Project site boundary with Hall Road, including six
mature trees that would remain in place, along
northern segment of the Project boundary between
the western Project boundary and the western
driveway to Hall Road. For the portion of the Project
boundary along Hall Road, between the western
driveway to Hall Road and Hall Road/Woodruff
Avenue intersection, there are approximately 15 trees
that would be removed; however, these trees are
smaller in size than the trees to be retained, and are
scattered at uneven intervals along the Project
boundary. These would be removed and replaced with
23 camphor trees which would provide a more
consistent and uniform landscape along this Project
boundary. Further, the Project landscape plan includes
new trees lining the southern Project boundary, and
throughout the Project parking areas fronting Stewart
and Gray Road. In total, the Project would include
removal of approximately 21 trees; retaining 6 existing trees; and planting 18 48-inch box trees, 18 36-inch
box trees, 119 24-inch box trees, and 21 15-gallon
trees. The Project would be required to obtain a tree
removal permit from the City to remove street trees as
part of Project implementation. While the Project
would result in the removal of trees to implement the
Project, it does retain the largest trees in the
northwestern corner of the site.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-9
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 4.5. Encourage activities that improve air quality.

Policy 4.5.1. Pursue every available means and
opportunities to reduce air particulate and pollutants
within the city and region.
• Program 4.5.1.2. Support regional and subregional
efforts in strategically managing goods movements
in order to reduce emissions from truck traffic.
• Program 4.5.1.3. Reduce air particulate and other
pollutants created by, but not limited to the
operation of diesel engine and increased truck traffic
from marine and port operations in the Long Beach
and Los Angeles ports and City operations, especially
along the 1-710 freeway corridor.
• Program 4.5.1.4. Encourage alternative modes of
travel, such as walking and cycling, to vehicle use
and alternative modes of employment, such as
telecommuting and home-based businesses, to
reduce emissions associated with vehicle use.

Consistent. The Project would comply with South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
rules to reduce air pollution emissions from
construction and operation of the Project, including
rules 402 (Nuisance), 403 (fugitive dust), and 1113
(architectural coatings). A Project-specific air quality impact analysis that includes analysis of construction
and operational air quality impacts has been prepared
for the Project and is the basis of the analysis
contained in Section 4.2, Air Quality. As discussed
therein, the Project would not result in significant air quality impacts. Refer to Circulation Element Goal 2.2
with regard to supporting alternative transportation
modes.

Goal 4.6. Conserve energy resources.

Policy 4.6.1. Promote the conservation of energy by
residents and businesses to conserve energy.
• Program 4.6.1.1. Provide incentives for people to
use renewal energy sources such as solar energy.

Consistent. The Project would remove existing on-site
buildings and replace them with a newly constructed,
single building, which would incorporate updated
technology, including improved energy efficiency. The
Project would be constructed consistent with the
requirements of Title 24, which regulates green
building practices and includes standards for planning
and design, water efficiency, material conservation
and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.

The proposed building would incorporate several
sustainability features such as solar and electric
vehicle infrastructure and would achieve a LEED Silver
certification.

Goal 4. 7. Provide efficient and low-cost solid waste
disposal.

Policy 4.7.1. Reduce the amount of solid waste
generated within the City.
• Program 4.7.1.2. Encourage recycling and source
reduction to divert recyclable and reusable materials
from the solid waste sent to landfills.

Consistent. The proposed Project would be required
to comply with applicable practices enacted by the
City under the California Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any other
applicable local, State, and federal solid waste
management regulations. The DMC requires that 100
percent of inert debris and at least 50 percent of the
remaining construction and demolition debris
generated during a construction or demolition project,
be diverted from landfill. The Project would comply
with applicable regulatory requirements regarding
solid waste.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-10
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Safety Element
Goal 5.2. Protect the health, safety, and welfare of
residents, workers, and visitors from the improper use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Policy 5.2.1. Monitor the generation, storage, and
disposal of hazardous materials.
• Program 5.2.1.1. Monitor inactive, active, or
potential hazardous material contaminated
properties, including the closed landfill at Rio San
Gabriel Park for odor and toxic gases.

Consistent. The Project does not propose handling
substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Some
hazardous substances typical of warehouse operations
would be used (e.g., cleaning agents, oils) but not the type or quantity that would create a significant health or safety risk. Use of hazardous materials would occur
in compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements.

Due to the historic use of the Project site for
manufacturing activities, and associated use of
hazardous materials in various manufacturing
processes, the soil and groundwater beneath the site
have been exposed to various constituents that are
now the subject of a voluntary cleanup effort by the
property owner. No adverse health impacts to the
community related to on-site contaminated soils or
hazardous building materials would occur due to the
ongoing remediation that would continue upon
Project implementation under the oversight of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, as well
as mitigation measures identified in Section 4,7,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Goal 5.3. Maintain and improve fire protection
services.

Policy 5.3.1. Provide adequate response to fire
emergencies.
• Program 5.3.1.2. Promote adequate widths on travel
lanes along street and alleys to accommodate
emergency vehicles.
• Program 5.3.1.3. Promote the design of private
properties with fire lane width and turnaround
capability appropriate for emergency vehicle access.

Consistent. The Project would provide a series of
26-foot-wide fire lanes throughout the Project site to
allow for emergency vehicle access.

Goal 5.5. Address the potential hazards associated
with seismic activity.

Policy 5.5.1. Minimize damage in the event of a major
earthquake.
• Program 5.5.1.4. Ensure the preparation of
geotechnical reports for developments to address
soil liquefaction hazards.

Consistent. The Project would be designed and
constructed in compliance with the Downey Building
Code and the California Building Code to ensure
hazards from seismic activity are minimized.

Additionally, Project design and construction would
incorporate Project-specific geotechnical
recommendations for site preparation and building
construction.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-11
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 5.6. Minimize potential adverse impacts from
flooding.

Policy 5.6.2. Minimize the potential for flooding due to stormwater generation.
• Program 5.6.2.1. Minimize increases in the amount
of stormwater generated by existing and proposed
land uses.

Consistent. The Project would result in a decrease in
stormwater runoff as compared to the existing
condition. The Project would decrease impervious
surfaces at the Project site by 1.13 acres, reducing the surface runoff generated by stormwater. Runoff would
be collected and treated on site prior to release to the City stormwater system.

Goal 5. 7. Reduce the likelihood of traffic accidents.

Policy 5. 7 .1. Promote traffic safety along streets.
• Program 5. 7.1.3. Promote street design that
impedes the use of local residential streets as bypass
and through routes.
• Program 5. 7.1.6. Promote the parking and access
agreements and parking consolidation to reduce the
number of driveway access points on streets.
• Program 5.7.1.7. Provide for vehicles to enter onto
streets in a perpendicular manner.
• Program 5.7.1.8. Promote designs to provide for
vehicles to enter onto streets in a forward manner.

Consistent. Project trucks would utilize the City’s
designated truck routes to access the freeways and
would not use local residential streets as bypass and
through routes. Parking would be provided on site
consistent with the City’s parking standards. Vehicles
entering and exiting the Project site would enter the
streets in a perpendicular, forward manner utilizing
one of the five Project driveways.

Policy 5.7.2. Promote the installation of sidewalks and walkways to improve traffic safety.
• Program 5.7.2.2. Encourage the installation of
sidewalks in new developments and major
remodeling consistent with the sidewalk Master
Plan.
• Program 5.7.2.4. Promote internal walkways and
bikeways on private property that are safe and
convenient to bicyclists.

Consistent. Sidewalks are present on all streets
surrounding the Project site; however, the Project
would provide improved sidewalks with landscaping
and parkway plantings along Hall Road and Stewart
and Gray Road for the entire Project site frontage.

Noise Element
Goal 6.1. Protect persons from exposure to excessive
noise.

Policy 6.1.1. Minimize noise impacts onto noise-
sensitive uses.
• Program 6.1.1.1. Enforce noise standards.
• Program 6.1.1.2. Ensure that new developments
within areas with exterior noise at unacceptable
levels are designed to maintain interior noise levels
at acceptable levels.
• Program 6.1.1.3. Continue to enforce provisions
prohibiting construction activities during noise-
sensitive hours.

Consistent. The Project consists of a warehouse/
logistics use that would operate 24 hours per day that
is located in an area comprised of various uses,
including noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs). The
closest NSLU to the Project site is a single-family home located approximately 240 feet east of the Project
site, across Hall Road, Woodruff Avenue, and the
Union Pacific Railroad corridor. In addition, multi-
family residences are located approximately 250 feet
southwest of the Project site, across Stewart and Gray
Road. There are also single-family residences located
approximately 300 feet west of the Project site and
multi-family residences located approximately 320
feet east of the Project site, but these are substantially shielded from noise on the Project site by large
existing industrial/commercial buildings.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-12
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, the Project would
not result in significant noise impacts with regard to
construction traffic noise, on-site operational noise,
and operational traffic noise. The Project would also
comply with City requirements for construction-
related noise, including adhering to the requirements
of Section 4606.5 of the DMC, which prohibits
construction between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. unless granted a permit from the City.

Project construction would occur within the allowable
daytime hours with the exception of concrete pours
for the building slabs and tilt-up walls, which are
typically done at night for these types of structures
primarily due to temperature/weather conditions. The
Project includes a special permit request from the City for limited nighttime construction activities for
concrete pours. As detailed in Section 4.10, noise
levels at some of the nearby NSLUs may be in excess
of 10 dBA over existing ambient levels during the
limited concrete pours. Mitigation is identified that
includes advanced notification to NSLUs within a
300-foot radius of the Project site of the anticipated
nighttime construction activities and a noise complaint line. While the issuance of a special permit, which
would have specific provisions/requirements, and
implementation of this mitigation measure would
minimize temporary construction noise impacts to
surrounding NSLUs, impacts would be considered
significant and unavoidable because it cannot be
guaranteed that nighttime noise levels would be
reduced to below 10 dBA over existing ambient levels.

The Project, however, would be consistent with this
goal because nighttime construction activities would
be conducted in accordance with City provisions/
procedures per the DMC and would implement
measures to reduce/minimize noise impacts.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-13
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 6.2. Protect persons from exposure to excessive
noise generated by various modes of transportation.

Policy 6.2.1. Reduce noise generated by vehicular
traffic.
• Program 6.2.1.2. Enforce regulations to require truck traffic to use designated truck routes in the City.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, the
Project would not result in significant noise impacts
with regard to construction traffic noise or operational traffic noise. Project trucks would utilize the City’s
designated truck routes to access the freeways. The
designated truck routes in the area include Stewart
and Gray Road, which connects to both Woodruff
Avenue and Firestone Boulevard to the east, both of
which are also designated truck routes; Firestone
Boulevard provides direct access to I-605 east of the
Project site. Other designated truck routes include
Bellflower Boulevard and Lakewood Boulevard to the
west of the Project site; Lakewood Boulevard provides
direct access to I-105 to the south of the Project site and to I-5 to the north of the Project site.

Goal 6.3. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive
land uses.

Policy 6.3.1. Minimize the amount of noise generated
by land uses.
• Program 6.3.1.3. Concentrate land uses that
generate high amount of traffic at locations where
local residential streets will not be used as through
traffic routes, thus creating more traffic-related
noise.
• Program 6.3.1.5. Discourage loading doors,
windows, and other openings on buildings from
facing residential and other noise-sensitive land
uses.
• Program 6.3.1.6. Discourage the placement of air
conditioning equipment, electric generators, or
other noise-generating equipment in close proximity
to adjacent properties.
• Program 6.3.1.7. Encourage that activities be
maintained indoors to reduce noise impacts onto
adjacent properties.
• Program 6.3.1.9. Concentrate construction activities
producing the most noise during midday hours to
minimize impacts onto nearby residents.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Noise, the
Project would not result in significant noise impacts
with regard to construction traffic noise, on-site
operational noise, and operational traffic noise.

Project trucks would utilize the City’s designated truck routes to access the freeways and would not utilize
local residential streets for through traffic routes. The Project would occur on an existing industrial site, and is not directly adjacent to residential or other NSLUs
and thus, would not have loading doors, windows, and
other openings facing NSLUs. On-site noise-generating
equipment, such as HVAC units, refrigeration
condensers, would be placed on rooftops and not in
close proximity to adjacent properties. Besides loading at the docks, proposed operational activities would be
conducted within the interior of the proposed
building. As previously stated, operational noise
impacts were assessed as less than significant and
would not adversely impact adjacent properties. With
regard to construction noise, the noisiest anticipated
construction activity would be during site preparation
and demolition of the existing buildings, which would
occur during the allowable daytime hours.

Open Space Element
No goals, policies, or programs from the Open Space
Element are applicable to the proposed Project.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-14
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Design Element
Goal 8.1. Promote quality design for new, expanded,
and remodeled construction.

Policy 8.1.1. Promote architectural design of the
highest quality.
• Program 8.1.1.1. Discourage construction with
architectural design of poor quality.
• Program 8.1.1.5. Encourage applicants to use
licensed professionals to prepare architectural and
landscaping plans.
• Program 8.1.1.6. Encourage developments to be
“internally compatible” in architectural design.
• Program 8.1.1.8. Promote good quality sign design.

Consistent. The Project would remove the existing
structures, which are older metal and brick buildings
with an overall inconsistent design themes, and are
surrounded by extensive parking and fencing. The new
structure would provide a more cohesive visual
character compared to the existing condition.

The
Project would improve visual quality from public
viewpoints by removing security fencing, providing a
single building with modernized architectural design,
and installing landscaping within and at the borders of the Project site.

Goal 8.3. Promote the enhancement of the
streetscape.

Policy 8.3.1. Enhance the views of property from
public streets to exhibit a positive image.
• Program 8.3.1.1. Promote prevailing street yard
setbacks for buildings consistent with adjacent
properties.
• Program 8.3.1.2. Maximize the landscaped setback
on street yard setbacks.
• Program 8.3.1.3. Minimize the amount of pavement
and other non-plant material along the street yard
setbacks.
• Program 8.3.1.5. Discourage security devices and
fence/wall designs that portray an image that the
community is unfriendly and uninviting.

Consistent. The Project would improve visual quality
of the site from public viewpoints (adjacent Hall Road
and Stewart and Gray Road) by removing security
fencing, providing a single building with modernized
architectural design, and installing landscaping within and at the borders of the Project site. The proposed
landscaping would provide trees along the northern
and southern Project boundaries, adjacent to Hall
Road and Stewart and Gray Road, enhancing the views
of the Project site from these public roads.

Policy 8.3.3. Promote the installation of new trees.
• Program 8.3.3.1. Promote the installation of new
trees throughout the City, but especially where
visible from the street.

Consistent. Trees would be placed along the northern
and southern Project boundaries, adjacent to Hall
Road and Stewart and Gray Road. Additionally, new
trees would be placed in the northern and southern
portions of the Project site, within sparking areas,
around building entrances, and along the southern
wall of the proposed building.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-15
General Plan Goal, Policy, or Program Project Consistency Goal 8.4. Enhance Downey’s cultural resources.

Policy 8.4.1. Identify the city’s cultural resources.
• Program 8.4.1.1. Conduct a survey to identify
historic and architecturally significant structures,
locations, and archeological resources.
• Program 8.4.1.2. Seek listing for appropriate
properties on the National Register of Historic Places
and the California State Register of Historic
Resources.

Consistent. A Cultural Resources Report has been
prepared for the Project, which included a survey,
records search, and an evaluation of the existing on-
site buildings to identify if cultural resources are
present on or adjacent to the site. Based on the results of this analysis, the Project would not impact any
known cultural resources. Mitigation measures are
identified in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, to
address unknown subsurface resources if encountered
during Project construction.

Economic Development
Goal 9.1. Attract and retain businesses.

Policy 9.1.1. Develop programs to attract and retain
businesses.
• Program 9.1.1.5. Continue the revitalization of
commercial and industrial corridors.

Consistent. The Project would attract a new business
to the Project site, which is in an existing industrial area. The Project would revitalize the site with the
new proposed structure, eliminating the piece-meal
appearance of the site caused by multiple older
buildings, outdoor storage, and fencing, and would
provide a cohesive development, in support of
revitalizing this industrial portion of the City.

Goal 9.2. Promote Downey as an employment center.

Policy 9.2.1. Promote job-generating land uses.
• Program 9.2.1.1. Discourage nonresidential land
uses that do not produce jobs.
• Program 9.2.1.2. Promote employment centers that
have potential to serve as catalyst for the creation of additional jobs.
• Program 9.2.1.3. Promote employment that
increases the daytime population of the city creating
customer demand for other businesses.

Consistent. The Project would continue to provide
jobs associated with industrial land uses at the Project site. The Project is expected to create approximately
300 construction jobs and approximately 250
permanent jobs.

Policy 9.2.2. Promote employment in various
economic sectors to shield against business cycles.
• Program 9.2.2.1. Promote a diversified employment
base with jobs in sectors in addition to retail sales.

Goal 9.3. Ensure the continued fiscal balance of the
community.

Policy 9.3.1. Balance the maximization of revenue
generation with costs for providing services.
• Program 9.3.1.1. Encourage land uses that generate
property tax and sales tax revenue.

Consistent. The Project consists of a land use that
would continue to generate property tax and sales tax
revenue.

Appendix J – Land Use Plan Policy Consistency Analysis Tables J-16

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix K
Noise and Vibration Report
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road
Warehouse Project
Noise and Vibration Report
October 2023| 04967.00001.001
Submitted to:

City of Downey
11111 Brookshire Avenue
Downey, CA 90241
Prepared for:

Prologis, Inc.
2141 Rosecrans Avenue,
Suite 1151
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942

This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Construction Activities and Phasing ................................................................................................ 1

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Noise and Sound Level Descriptors and Terminology ..................................................................... 2

2.2 Groundborne Vibration Descriptors and Terminology .................................................................... 3

2.3 Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land uses ......................................................................................... 3

2.4 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................... 3

2.4.1 California Noise Control Act .................................................................................................. 3

2.4.2 City of Downey Municipal Code ............................................................................................ 4

2.4.3 City of Downey General Plan Noise Element ........................................................................ 5

2.5 E xisting Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.5.1 Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................................... 6

2.5.2 Existing Noise Sources ........................................................................................................... 6

3.0 METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND THRESHOLDS ...................................................................... 7

3.1 Equipment and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Noise Modeling Software ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Construction .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Operation .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance .......................................................................... 11

4.0 IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Issue 1: Excessive Noise Levels ...................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Temporary Construction Noise ........................................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Construction Traffic Noise .................................................................................................. 14

4.1 .3 Warehouse Operational Noise Generation ........................................................................ 14

4.1.4 Operational Off-Site Transportation Noise Generation ...................................................... 16

4.1.5 Significance of Impacts........................................................................................................ 18

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page

4.1.6 Mitigation Framework ........................................................................................................ 18

4.1.7 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 19

4.2 Issue 2: Excessive Vibration ........................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Construction Vibration ........................................................................................................ 19

4.2.2 Operational Vibration ......................................................................................................... 20

4.2.3 Significance of Impacts........................................................................................................ 20

4.2.4 Mitigation Framework ........................................................................................................ 20

4.2.5 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 20

4.3 Issue 3: Airport Noise Exposure ..................................................................................................... 20

4.3.1 Significance of Impacts........................................................................................................ 21

4.3.2 Mitigation Framework ........................................................................................................ 21

4.3.3 Significance After Mitigation ............................................................................................... 21

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................ 21

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 22

LIST OF APPENDICES

A Mechanical Equipment Data Sheets
B RCNM Output
C CadnaA Output

LIST OF FIGURES

No. T
itle Follows Page

1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2 4 Receiver Locations ........................................................................................................................... 4

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES

No. Title Page

1 City of Downey Exterior Noise Limits ............................................................................................... 4 2 2004 Transportation Noise Contours............................................................................................... 6 3 Stationary Refrigeration Unit Fan Noise Data.................................................................................. 9 4 Condenser Noise Data ................................................................................................................... 10 5 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................... 10 6 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 13 7 Daytime Operational Noise ............................................................................................................ 15 8 Nighttime Operational Noise ......................................................................................................... 16 9 Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels .............................................................................................. 17 10 Cumulative (Year 2024) Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................... 17

This page intentionally left blank

v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADT average daily trips

CadnaA DataKustic Computer Aided Noise Abatement model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Downey
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CY cubic yard

dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel

hp horsepower
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz Hertz

I- Interstate

kHz kilohertz

L
DN Day-Night sound level
LEQ time-averaged noise level
LLG Linscott, Law & Greenspan
LMAX maximum noise level

mph miles per hour
mPa micro Pascal

NSLU noise sensitive land use

PPV peak particle velocity

RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RPM revolutions per minute

SF square foot/feet
SPL sound pressure level
STC Sound Transmission Class
S
WL Sound Power Level

TIS Transportation Impact Study
TNM Traffic Noise Model
TRU transport refrigeration unit

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

This page intentionally left blank

Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report assesses potential construction and operational noise impacts associated with Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project) located in the City of Downey, (City) California. The project would replace the existing businesses on the project site, remove five existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF), and construct and operate an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage.

Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space).

Per the City Municipal Code, construction noise is exempt from the provisions of City Noise Ordinances provided a valid permit for such construction has been obtained from the City and the construction activity does not occur outside the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. However, construction activity which results in a 10 dBA or more increase in ambient noise levels would be potentially significant. Anticipated site preparation/demolition and earthmoving activities would generate temporary elevated noise levels for residential uses approximately 290 feet south of the project site. Project site preparation/demolition and earthmoving noise would not result in a significant increase over daytime ambient noise levels.

However, nighttime site preparation/demolition and earthmoving could result in a potentially significant increase in ambient noise levels for the residences south of the project site. Due to potentially high daytime temperatures, pouring of concrete for the project building and sidewalks could be required to occur at night. Nighttime concrete pouring work could result in a potentially significant temporary construction noise increase over ambient noise levels for residences within 300 feet of the project site.

Mitigation measure NOI-01 would limit project construction to the hours between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., in accordance with the City Noise Ordinance, and prohibit construction on Sundays and City recognized holidays. If nighttime concrete pouring work is required, mitigation measure NOI-01 requires prior notification of all affected residences within 300 feet of the project site, and the logging of noise complaints. While mitigation measure NOI-01 would inform residents of the potential timing and duration of disturbance, the mitigation would not reduce the project construction noise to acceptable limits. Project temporary construction noise impacts would therefore be significant and unavoidable.

Operational noise sources would include ventilation and refrigeration equipment on the project’s rooftop, trucks circulating on the project site, transport refrigeration units (TRUs) used on the project site, and loading docks (truck idling and truck backup alarms). Operational noise produced on the project site would not exceed the City daytime or nighttime noise standards measured at surrounding land uses. Noise generated by project traffic would not increase noise levels on nearby roadways by significant amounts. Therefore, project operational noise impacts would less than significant.

Project construction would not result in significant vibrations affecting nearby residents or damaging nearby buildings. Project operations would not be a significant source of vibrations. Therefore, project vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Although aircraft overflights are common in the Downey area, particularly overflights by commercial aircraft approaching Los Angeles International Airport, the project site is not located within the influence area or the noise contours for any area airports. Therefore, persons residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to substantial noise from airports or aircraft.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

ES-2

This page intentionally left blank

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report assesses the potential noise impacts that would be associated with construction noise, operational noise, and project-generated traffic noise for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (project). The analysis includes a description of existing conditions in the project vicinity, an assessment of potential impacts associated with project construction, and an evaluation of project operational impacts. Analysis within this report addresses the relevant issues listed in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 29.16-acre project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Downey (City) in southwestern Los Angeles County. The project site is located approximately ten miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and nine miles northwest of the County of Orange. Regional access is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [I-5]), the San Gabriel Freeway (I-605), the Century Freeway (I-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (I-710). Primary vehicular access to the project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road. See Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project would remove existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) on the project site and construct and operate an approximately 535,685 SF industrial concrete tilt-up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The project would include 683 auto parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage.

Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (484,605 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. On-site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations. See Figure 3, Site Plan. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The project would also include off-site improvements within the right-of-way of Hall Road and Stewart and Gray Road along the project’s roadway frontage. Off-site improvements would include underground utilities, project site driveway access, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, landscaping, and lighting.

1.3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PHASING
Construction of the Project would begin in Spring 2024 with demolition/site preparation to remove all existing on-site structures, paving, and other improvements. Demolition/site preparation would last approximately 4 to 5 months. Following demolition/site preparation, grading, off-site improvements, construction, and paving of the proposed new buildings would begin in late spring 2024 and continue for approximately 14. Construction activities would finish in Spring 2025. Demolition and site preparation HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

2 would include the removal of the existing structures on the site totaling approximately 433,000 SF.

Approximately 75,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be exported from the site during grading.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 NOISE AND SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS AND TERMINOLOGY
All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol L
EQ, with a specified duration. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.

Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound.

In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver contribute to the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.

Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source.

A logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of dBA units. The threshold of hearing for the human ear is about 0 dBA, which corresponds to 20 micro Pascals (mPa).

Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic.

Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 dBA changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000 Hertz [Hz]–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dBA are generally not perceptible. It is widely accepted, however, that people begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dBA increase is generally HELIX
Environmental Planning

^
?

TURA COUNTY
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!! ! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!!!! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
! !
!!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!! ! ! !
!
!! ! !!!
!! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !!!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
San Gab riel M ou nt ain s
!
!
! ! !
!
!!!!! !
! ! !
!
S
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!! ! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! ! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
O
!
! !
R
! !
A
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
N
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
G
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
E CO
!
!
S
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
a
U
n t
N
a
TY
Ana
! !
! !
!
!
!
M
!
o
!
!
u
!
!
n t
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
a
!
i
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
n
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
s
!
!
!
!
! !
!$
Aå
AÝ
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\Noise\Fig1_Regional.mxd 04967.00001.001 1/20/2023 - SAB San Fernando
Valley !"^$
!
Agoura
Hills
IÆ Am
Calabasas
!
!
!
Mal
Aí

BEVERLY
HILLS
Ô? %&l(
T
CA CU
SAN
MONI
A
?×ibu
!
!
C
LVER
ITY
!"`$

TORRANCE
LOS

ANGELES
E
%(&

COMPTON
?Æ
CARSON
!
d
Añ
ACTON
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse

VICTOVILLE
?å
!
?ß
Aå
!
ar
ta
ita
San
Cl
!
Añ

HESPERIA
?×
!"a$ Añ %&(g

BURBANK
I

HOLLYWOOD
Æ
?å

GLENDAL

PASADENA
?× %&(e SAN

GABRIEL
%
%&(o
&g( AZUZA ?øSAN BERNARDINO
ONTARIO ?¥
!"`$ WEST POMONACOVINA
!"`$ %&h(
!"`$
!
?¬ ??z
VERS
z
IDE

INGLEWOOD
DOWNEY
!"^$ WHITTIER
Project S

CHINO RI
ite LA
HABRA
!"a$
%&(q NORWA LK BUENA
PARK ?u
NORCO
MORENO
VALLEY
AÆ?lvord
o%&( ?ÆANAHEIM
?Æ
!
CORONA Lake
Mathews
%&h(
VERDES
?Ô

PALOS LONG
BEACH
%&l(
!!

WESTMINSTER
?ì SANT
ANA
A
!"a$
PERRIS
%&l(

HUNTINGT
BEACH
ON
?s
%&l( !"^$
IRV
AÝ
I NE
Lee
Lake
?±
AÎ
E
LAKE Canyon
LSINORE Lake
I
0 10 Miles
K
NEWPOR
BEACH
T
Lake
Elsinore
°
%&h(
!"$Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)
Regional Location
Figure 1

Project Site
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\Noise\Fig2_Aerial.mxd 04967.00001.001 1/20/2023 - SABI Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse
Pellet St
Firestone Blvd
Hall Rd
Elm Vista Dr
Coldbrook Ave
Woodruff Ave
Nance Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Stewart And Gray Rd
0 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2021)300 Feet
Figure 2
Aerial Photograph
K
Site Plan
Figure 3
I:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\Noise\Fig3_SitePlan.indd 04967.00001.001 1/20/2023 - SAB Source: HPA Architecture 2022
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse

Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

3 perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dBA increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

2.2 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION DESCRIPTORS AND TERMINOLOGY
Groundborne vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves transmitted through the ground with an average motion of zero. Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena and anthropogenic causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions). Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the RMS velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. Generally, a PPV of less than 0.08 in/sec does not produce perceptible vibration. At 0.12 PPV in/sec is the level at which there is a risk of architectural damage (e.g., cracking of plaster) to historical buildings and other vibration-sensitive structures and the level at which continuous vibration may become noticeable to building occupants. A level of 0.20 PPV in/sec is commonly used as a threshold for risk of architectural damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2020).

2.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION SENSITIVE LAND USES
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, schools, transient lodging (hotels), hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. Noise receptors are individual locations that may be affected by noise. The nearest NSLU is a single-family home located approximately 240 feet east of the project site, across Hall Road, Woodruff Avenue, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. Additional nearby NSLUs include multi-family residences are located approximately 290 feet southwest of the project site, across Stewart and Gray Road; single-family residences are located approximately 300 feet west of the project site beyond a row of industrial businesses; and multi-family residences are located approximately 320 feet east of the project site, across Woodruff Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. See Figure 4, Receiver Locations.

Land uses in which ground-borne vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment, such as research, hospitals, and university research operations (Caltrans 2020) are considered “vibration-sensitive.” The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the ground-borne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of ground-borne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses, schools, or transient lodging. Land uses in the project area that are subject to annoyance from vibration include the residences described above.

2.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.4.1 California Noise Control Act
The California Noise Control Act is section within the California Health and Safety Code (HSC §46000) that describes excessive noise as a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

4 certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.

2.4.2 City of Downey Municipal Code
The following City of Downey Municipal Code sections would be applicable to noise generated by the project (City 2023).
4600.2 Equipment and Machinery
(b) No person shall use, operate, or permit to be used or operated within any commercial (C) or manufacturing (M) Zone, as defined in Chapter 1 of Article IX of this code, which is within three hundred feet of a residential use, any power tool, machine, or equipment, or any other tool, machine, or equipment, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner that the noise there from disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, or welfare of the neighboring residential inhabitants.
4606.3 Maximum Permissible Noise Levels by Sound Sources Across Property Boundaries (a) All activities to which this chapter is applicable shall be conducted in such a manner that any noise produced shall not create a disturbance. The maximum permissible sound pressure level measured at the property boundary of any land use in Subsection (b) of this section from any noise source not operating on a public right-of-way shall constitute prima facie evidence of a public nuisance when such noise level exceeds five dBA above the ambient noise level at any period during the course of a 24-hour day.
(b) If the alleged noise source is of a continuous nature and cannot reasonably be discontinued for a time period wherein the ambient noise level can be determined, the maximum permissible steady noise level by sound sources across the property boundary of any land use cited below may be less, but not greater than [noise levels in section 4606.3(b) [reproduced as Table 1, City of Downey Exterior Noise Limits]:

Table 1

CITY OF DOWNEY EXTERIOR NOISE LIMITS
Receiving Land Use 7:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Residential 55 dBA 45 dBA
Commercial 65 dBA 65 dBA
Manufacturing 70 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of Downey Municipal Code Section 4606.3(b) dBA = A-weighted decibel

(c) If any parcel of real property is developed and used for multiple land uses, the lower land use noise level standard shall apply.

I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
sto
Col
e
ll St
!
!
!
!
Iz tta Av e e

Fire
Stonew oodSt
3rdSt
Mc Cahi
Marbel Ave

Buell St
ne Blvd
Fostoria St
Nash Av
Cecilia St
State Route 42 CordAve
Iowa St
Margaret St
Project Site
!( Modeled Residential Receiver
!( Modeled Commercial and Industrial Receiver
Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Residences
R3(
:\PROJECTS\D\DowneyCity_04967\00001_PrologisStewartGray\Map\Noise\Fig4_ReceiverLocs.mxd 04967.00001.001 1/24/2023 - SAB dbrook Ave
Raebert St
Buckles St
Bellflower Blvd
Corrigan Ave
Adenmoor Ave
R4(
Hall Rd
!I3(
!R2(!I4( !(
C2
R5(
R6
!I5
!(C1(
(
!(
I1
Stewart And Gray Rd
!(
I2
!R1(
Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse
PangbornAve
Pellet St
Hasty Ave
Casanes Ave
Nance Ave
Na nceSt
RegentViewSt
Woodruff Ave
Cee Bee Dr
Elm Vista Dr
Washburn Rd
Cornuta Ave Eastbrook Ave Dunrobin Ave
I
Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2021)600 Feet
K
Receiver Loca ions
Figure 4
t
0 Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

5 (d) In the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted in Subsection (b) of this section may be adjusted by the inclusion of the following factors when applicable:
(1) Noise source operated 12 minutes per hour or less: + 5 dBA (2) Noise source operated 3 minutes per hour or less: + 10 dBA (3) Noise source operated 1 minute per hour or less: + 15 dBA (e) Impulsive sounds, pure tone, or sounds with a cyclically varying amplitude shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound pressure level of five dBA less than those listed in Subsection (b) of this section, with the inclusion of the corrective factors listed in Subsection (d) of this section, when applicable.
4606.4 Exemptions
The standards established in this chapter shall not apply to any of the following noise sources:
(a) Any activity to the extent preempted from regulation by State or Federal law; (f) The unamplified human voice;
(g) Warning systems used to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. 4606.5 Construction Projects
Construction, repair or remodeling equipment and devices and other related construction noise sources shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter provided a valid permit for such construction, repair, or remodeling shall have been obtained from the City. In any circumstance other than emergency work, no repair or remodeling shall take place between the hours of 9:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, and no repair or remodeling shall exceed 85 dBA across any property boundary at any time during the course of a 24-hour day.

2.4.3 City of Downey General Plan Noise Element
The Downey Vision 2025 General Plan Noise Chapter establishes noise compatibility guidelines for land uses. Residential land uses would be normally acceptable with ambient noised levels at or below 60 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior; commercial land uses would be normally acceptable with ambient noised levels at or below 70 CNEL exterior and 60 CNEL interior; and industrial land uses would be normally acceptable ambient noised levels at or below 75 CNEL exterior and 60 CNEL interior (City 2005).

2.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently completely developed with industrial uses, currently in operation. The existing industrial buildings and related improvements are currently used by the following industrial tenants: EJ Lauren (Furniture Manufacturing), 88 Logistics/88 Transportation (Biotechnology/ Pharmaceutical Logistics), Western Pacific Pulp and Paper (Paper Recycler), OmniTeam (Commercial Kitchen Manufacturer) and Duray (Commercial Kitchen Manufacturer). The existing structures were likely developed in the mid-1970s.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

6 2.5.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The Project site is surrounded by the following land uses:
• North: Hall Road and Union Pacific Railroad rail corridor, beyond which are commercial and industrial uses.
• South: Stewart and Gray Road, beyond which are industrial and public utility uses; multi-family residential uses are located further to the southwest.
• East: Adjacent commercial and industrial uses, Woodruff Avenue, additional commercial and industrial uses further east; multi-family residential uses are located further to the northeast beyond the UPRR rail corridor.
• West: Industrial uses, beyond which are multi-family residential uses.

2.5.2 Existing Noise Sources
The existing on-site noise environment dominated by typical noise from industrial businesses on and around the project site and by transportation noise. Transportation noise sources in the area include the Union Pacific Railroad approximately 95 feet north of the project site; major roads including Stewart and Gray Road, Woodruff Avenue, and Firestone Boulevard; and commercial aircraft overflying the city.

According to the City’s Noise Element Noise Contour Map, the noise levels on the project site range from 70 CNEL (to the north along Hall Road and to the south along Stewart and Gray Road) to 60 CNEL near the center of the project site (City 2005). The distances from the centerline of major roads to the transportation noise contours, as reported in the City’s Noise Element, in the project vicinity are shown in Table 2, 2004 Transportation Noise Contours.

Table 2
2004 TRANSPORTATION NOISE CONTOURS
Road Segment
Distance to
70 CNEL
(feet)
Distance to
65 CNEL
(feet)
Distance to
60 CNEL
(feet)
Stewart and Gray Road – Bellflower Boulevard to Woodruff Avenue 65 205 655
Stewart and Gray Road – Woodruff Avenue to East City Limits 50 165 525 Woodruff Avenue – Firestone Boulevard to Stewart and Gray Road 85 260 825
Woodruff Avenue –Stewart and Gray Road to Imperial Highway 75 230 725 Firestone Boulevard – Lakewood Boulevard to Woodruff
Avenue 100 315 995
Firestone Boulevard – Woodruff Avenue to Stewart and Gray Road 100 310 985
Firestone Boulevard –Stewart and Gray Road to East City Limits 125 400 1,270 Source: City 2005
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

7 3.0 METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND

THRESHOLDS

3.1 EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY

3.1.1 Noise Modeling Software
Project construction noise was analyzed using the Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1 (RCNM; USDOT 2008), which utilizes estimates of sound levels from standard construction equipment.

Modeling of the exterior noise environment for this report was accomplished the Computer Aided Noise Abatement (CadnaA) model version 2021. Traffic noise was evaluated within CadnaA using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5. CadnaA is a model-based computer program developed by DataKustik for predicting noise impacts in a wide variety of conditions. CadnaA assists in the calculation, presentation, assessment, and mitigation of noise exposure. It allows for the input of project-related information, such as noise source data, barriers, structures, and topography to create a detailed CadnaA model, and uses the most up-to-date calculation standards to predict outdoor noise impacts. CadnaA traffic noise prediction is based on the data and methodology used in the TNM. TNM version 2.5, incorporated into CadnaA, was released in February 2004 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and calculates the daytime average hourly L
EQ from three-dimensional model inputs and traffic
data (USDOT 2004). Input variables included road alignment, elevation, lane configuration, area topography, existing and planned noise control features, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds.

The one-hour L
EQ noise level is calculated utilizing peak-hour traffic. Peak hour LEQ can be converted to CNEL using the following equation, where LEQ(h)pk is the peak hour LEQ, P is the peak hour volume percentage of the average daily trips (ADT), d and e are divisions of the daytime fraction of ADT to account for daytime and evening hours, and N is the nighttime fraction of ADT:

CNEL = LEQ(h)pk + 10*log10(4.17/P) + 10*log10(d + 4.77*e + 10*N) For urban roads in California with typical traffic patterns, the last two terms of the equation are near zero and the model-calculated one-hour LEQ noise output is approximately equal to the CNEL (Caltrans 2013).

3.2 ASSUMPTIONS

3.2.1 Construction
Construction activities would include demolition/site preparation, grading and installation of underground utilities, building construction, architectural coating (e.g., painting), and paving. Based on the project air quality analysis modeling, demolition would include the removal of the existing structures on the site totaling approximately 433,000 SF resulting in approximately 1,969 one-way haul trips (22 per day); grading would result in approximately 75,000 CY of total soil export and approximately 9,375 one-way haul trips (208 trips per day); and paving would require the import of approximately 12,640 CY of aggregate/asphalt (45 trips per day; HELIX 2023). Assuming an 8-hour construction day, up to 26 one-way haul truck trips would occur each hour.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

8 Construction would occur primarily Monday through Friday during daytime hours (not before 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m.) with equipment operating up to 8 hours per workday. However, due to high daytime temperatures, it is likely that pouring of concrete for the building slab, walls, and sidewalks would require nighttime work. Per the project engineering team, nighttime concrete pouring work would occur on approximately 40 nights during project construction. Included in those 40 nights, approximately 12 consecutive nights (including on weekends) would be required to pour the building slab foundation/floor. Typical nighttime concrete pouring work would require the use of multiple concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe. Nighttime concrete pouring work would typically commence at midnight with pouring completed by mid-morning and concrete finishing work continuing into the afternoon.

3.2.2 Operation
Anticipated operational noise sources are assumed to include delivery trucks with backup alarms; transport refrigeration units (TRUs; typically, a diesel-powered refrigeration unit mounted on the truck trailer or box); rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; rooftop-mounted refrigeration condenser units; and vehicular traffic.

3.2.2.1 Delivery Trucks
Operation of the project would involve diesel-powered heavy trucks for the delivery of goods to the project site and it would be operational for 24 hours a day. According to Table 2-1 of the project’s Transportation Impact Study (TIS), 98 one-way truck trips would occur each day, with 12 one-way truck trips during the peak hour entering and exiting the site (Linscott, Law & Greenspan [LLG] 2023).

The proposed project building would have 39 loading docks on the west side, 28 loading docks on the north side, and 42 loading docks on the east side. Delivery trucks access the site via three driveways on Hall Road, and two driveways on Stewart and Gray Road (see Figure 3). Modeling of peak hour noise assumed that the delivery trucks would be divided between the driveways in accordance with the project truck distribution analysis in the TIS: 35 percent on Hall Road and 65 percent on Stewart and Gray Road (LLG 2023). On-site truck circulation was modeled assuming 35 percent of trucks (four peak hour trucks) would enter via the middle driveway on Hall Road and proceed to the north docks, 33 percent of trucks (four peak hour trucks) would enter via the east driveway on Stewart and Gray Road and proceed to the east docks, and 32 percent of trucks (four peak hour trucks) would enter via the west driveway on Stewart and Gray Road and proceed to the west docks. Each truck was assumed to circulate on the project site at an average speed of eight miles per hour (mph), then reverse to a loading bay at 3 mph. Each truck was assumed to idle at the loading bay for the maximum allowable time of five minutes, in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Section 2485.

The project would provide a parking area for trucks/trailers along the project’s western, northern, and eastern sides. It is unknown how many trucks would use the parking areas during each day or peak hour.

To be conservative in evaluating the highest potential noise, every truck entering the project site was assumed to travel to a nearby parking area, reverse into a parking spot, and idle for five minutes before departing the project site. Truck circulation noise was modeled using the default heavy truck noise in CadnaA.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

9 Some trucks would generate noise from the use of transport refrigeration units (TRUs; typically, a diesel- powered refrigeration unit mounted on the truck trailer or box). Specific TRU noise would vary from unit to unit. Typical noise from a TRU was modeled as producing 75 dBA at 21 feet, based on field measurements of truck and TRU noise conducted by HELIX. Only trucks transporting goods to and from the project’s refrigerated warehouse space (five percent of the total project warehouse space) would be anticipated to be equipped with an operating TRU. Because the location of the refrigerated warehouse space within the project building was unknown at the time of this analysis, one out of the four peak hour trucks going to each loading dock area was assumed to be equipped with an operating TRU. Each TRU was assumed to operate at a 50 percent duty cycle during the analyzed peak noise hour.

There are no California or federal regulations which require on-road trucks to be equipped with backup warning devices. However, backup alarms are commonly used on delivery trucks due to safety/liability concerns. The most common truck backup alarm is a pulsing single tone, typically at one kHz. Recently, in response to noise complaints, backup alarms which produce a less intrusive pulsing broad-spectrum noise have been introduced. To be conservative, all trucks were assumed to be equipped with a traditional one kHz back up alarm, mounted on the back of the truck at a height of three feet. Backup alarms were modeled with typical noise levels of 109.7 dBA measured at a distance of four feet.

3.2.2.2 Stationary Refrigeration Units
The project would include stationary commercial-sized refrigeration units for the refrigerated warehouse space (approximately 26,785 SF). The location of the refrigerated warehouse space within the project building was not known at the time of this analysis. To be conservative, four rooftop refrigeration condensers were assumed, one located near the roof edge on each side of the building and would be surrounded by standard parapet walls approximately four feet high. For this analysis, four Hussman Proto-Air 3280 refrigeration systems were assumed, which have a sound power level (S WL) of

86.3 dBA when operating at the maximum speed of 1,150 revolution per minute. Noise data for the rooftop refrigeration condenser unit and associated fan is shown in Table 3, Stationary Refrigeration Unit Fan Noise Data. The manufacturer’s data sheets are included in Appendix A to this report.

Table 3

STATIONARY REFRIGERATION UNIT FAN NOISE DATA
Fan Type 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz
Overall Noise Level
in A-weighted Scale
(dBA)1
Single Fan
1,150 RPM

90.6 93.6 89.6 86.6 84.6 79.6 75.6 89.3
Source: Hussmann, see Appendix A
1 Sound Power Levels (SWL)
Hz = Hertz; kHz = kilohertz; RPM = revolutions per minute

3.2.2.3 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Units The project would use commercial-sized HVAC units located on the rooftop of the building for the proposed office space. Specific planning data for the future HVAC systems was not available at the time of this analysis. Standard HVAC planning assumes approximately one ton of HVAC for every 350 to 500 SF of occupied office space (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers [ASHRAE] 2012). For the purposes of this analysis, one Carrier 50PG 12-ton HVAC unit, which HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

10 has a sound power level (SWL) of 80.0 dBA, was assumed for each of the project three office spaces (see Figure 3). The HVAC systems were assumed to be mounted on the project building roof and would be surrounded by standard parapet walls approximately four feet high. The manufacturer’s noise data for the HVAC units is provided below in Table 4, Condenser Noise Data; more detailed data can be found in Appendix C, Carrier 50PG Condenser Data. The manufacturer’s data sheets are included in Appendix A to this report.

Table 4

CONDENSER NOISE DATA
63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz
Overall Noise Level
in A-weighted
Scale (dBA)1

90.4 83.1 80.9 77.8 75.2 70.0 66.1 57.6 80.0
Source: Carrier, see Appendix A
1 Sound Power Levels (SWL)
Note: Noise levels in decibels (dB) measured at octave frequencies Hz = Hertz; kHz = kilohertz

3.2.2.4 Vehicular Traffic
Modeled existing traffic data for the roadways in the project vicinity were based on volumes provided by the project’s TIS (LLG 2023) for four scenarios: existing, existing plus project, cumulative 2024, and cumulative 2024 plus project. The mix of cars and trucks on the analyzed roadways was not provided in the TIS. Therefore, all analyzed road segments were assumed to carry a mix typical of urban areas with significant industrial activity: 92 percent cars and light trucks, 4 percent medium trucks; and 4 percent heavy duty trucks. Trip generation rates and trip distribution were also provided in the TIS. Speed limits and road widths analyzed road segments were used in the modeling to calculate existing and future noise levels. Table 5, PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, shows the p.m. peak hour traffic volumes used in the modeling for the analyzed roadway segments.

Table 5

PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Roadway Segment Existing
ADT
Existing +
Project
ADT
2024
ADT
2024 +
Project
ADT
Firestone Boulevard
Woodruff Avenue to Stewart & Gray Road 2858 2871 2975 2988 Stewart & Gray Road to I-605 3739 3803 3925 3989
Woodruff Avenue
Firestone Boulevard to Hall Road 1342 1388 1399 1445
Hall Road to Stewart & Gray Road 1126 1211 1180 1265
Stewart & Gray Road to Washburn Road 1057 1094 1146 1183 Washburn Road to Imperial Highway 1239 1257 1311 1329
Hall Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue 163 260 166 263
Stewart & Gray Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue 1337 1374 1363 1400
Woodruff Avenue to Firestone Boulevard 1035 1087 1109 1160

I I I I
HELIX
Environmenta/Planning ----
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

11 Roadway Segment Existing
ADT
Existing +
Project
ADT
2024
ADT
2024 +
Project
ADT
Washburn Road
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 220 237 224 241
Imperial Highway
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 2532 2545 2596 2609
Woodruff Avenue to I-605 2895 2908 2956 2978
Source: LLG 2023
ADT = average daily trips

3.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would:

Threshold 1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City General Plan or noise ordinance.

Per the City Municipal Code Section 4606.3, noise generated on the project site would be significant if noise exceeds ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more, measured at the receiving land use property line.

If ambient noise levels cannot be measured, noise generated on the project site would be significant if steady noise exceeds 55 dBA L
EQ between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or 45 dBA LEQ between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. for residential uses; 65 dBA LEQ for commercial uses; or 70 dBA LEQ for industrial uses.

The City has not established standards for determining the significance of increases in transportation noise resulting from a development project. Therefore, the standards of significance are based on perceived increases in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be significant in areas where existing traffic noise at NSLUs exceeds 60 CNEL (the City General Plan noise compatibility level for residential uses) and implementation of the project would result in an increase of the noise level by 3 CNEL or more (a just perceivable increase in typical noisy environments), or where existing traffic noise is less than 60 CNEL and implementation of the project results in an increase of 5 CNEL or more.

Per the City Municipal Code Section 4606.5, construction noise is exempt from the provisions of City Noise Ordinances provided a valid permit for such construction has been obtained from the City. CEQA case law establishes that a project’s noise impact analysis must consider the increase in ambient noise levels (King and Gardiner Farms v. County of Kern). Neither the City nor any state regulatory agency have established criteria for determining the significance of an increase in ambient noise levels resulting from temporary and short-term construction noise. Therefore, temporary project construction noise measured at off-site NSLUs would be significant if it would result in a perceived doubling of loudness, estimated to be an increase of 10 dBA above exterior ambient noise levels (Caltrans 2013). This threshold provides a reasonable balance between the need to operate noise generating equipment for most temporary construction activities and the desire to protect NSLUs from temporary disturbances.

HELIX
Environmenta/Planning --------
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

12 Threshold 2: Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

Ground-borne vibration would be potentially significant if the project would result in ground-borne vibration which exceeds the “strongly perceptible” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.1 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) for nearby residences, or exceed the threshold for architectural damage potential criteria for buildings in good repair with gypsum bard walls of 0.4 inch per second PPV, for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources (such as impact pile drivers, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment; Caltrans 2020).

Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.

Excessive noise exposure is defined as noise levels that exceed the standards in the City General Plan Noise Element for the associated land use.

4.0 IMPACTS

4.1 ISSUE 1: EXCESSIVE NOISE LEVELS
Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City General Plan or noise ordinance?

4.1.1 Temporary Construction Noise
Construction of the project would require site clearing, grading, installation of underground utilities/infrastructure, construction of new buildings, paving, and architectural coating. The magnitude of the noise impact would depend on the type of construction activity, equipment, duration of each construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening structures.

Construction would generate elevated noise levels that may disrupt NSLUs in the area. As described in Section 2.5.2, above, the closest NSLU to the project site is a single-family home located approximately 240 feet east of the project site, across Hall Road, Woodruff Avenue, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. In addition, multi-family residences are located approximately 290 feet southwest of the project site, across Stewart and Gray Road. The single-family residences located approximately 300 feet west of the project site and multi-family residences located approximately 320 feet east of the project site are substantially shielded from noise on the project site by large existing industrial/commercial buildings.

Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location and would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day. Further, not all the pieces of equipment would be used within 240 feet of the closest off-site residences. It is anticipated that, over the course of an hour, demolition and earthmoving equipment would operate an average distance of 100 or more feet from the project property lines, or 340 or more feet from the closest NSLU. Table 6, Construction Equipment Noise Levels, provides the 340-foot distance noise levels for equipment anticipated to be used for general construction activities.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

13 Table 6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Unit Percent
Operating Time
LMAX
at 340 feet
dBA LEQ
at 340 feet
Backhoe 40 60.9 56.9
Compressor 40 61.0 57.0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 20 72.9 65.9
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 60.9 58.2
Concrete Pump Truck 20 62.1 57.8
Crane 16 63.9 55.9
Dozer 40 65.0 61.0
Excavator 40 64.1 60.1
Generator 50 64.0 61.0
Grader 40 68.3 64.4
Paver 50 60.6 57.6
Scraper 40 66.9 63.0
Roller 20 63.3 56.4
Source: RCNM
LMAX = maximum noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibel; LEQ = time-averaged noise level

The noisiest anticipated construction activity would be during site preparation/demolition, a dozer, an excavator, and a concrete saw may be working concurrently and would produce a combined noise level of 67.9 dBA LEQ at 340 feet, as modeled using the RCNM. The RCNM output is included in Appendix B to this report. The closest NSLU, a single-family residence is approximately 100 feet from the Union Pacific railroad tracks and approximately 50 feet from the centerline of Woodruff Avenue. According to the City General Plan Noise Element, this residence is located in an area with an ambient noise level of 70 CNEL or more and project construction would not exceed ambient noise levels. The next closest NSLU, multi- family residences are south of Stewart and Gray Road and adjacent to existing industrial land uses.

According to the City General Plan Noise Element, these residences are located in an area with an ambient noise level of 65 CNEL resulting from traffic on Stewart and Gray Road. Therefore, the maximum calculated project site preparation/demolition noise level of 67.9 dBA L EQ would be
approximately 3 dBA above daytime ambient noise levels at the multi-family residences to the south, and the increase over ambient noise would be less than the 10 dBA increase significance level. However, nighttime ambient noise levels are typically lower than daytime levels—the CNEL reported in the General Plan Noise Element includes a 10 dBA weighting during nighttime hours. Therefore, project site preparation/demolition noise would be potentially significant if it would occur at night or during other periods with reduced transportation noise, such as Sundays and holidays.

As described in Section 3.2.1, due to high daytime temperatures, pouring of concrete for project construction may be required to be conducted at night. The combined noise from two concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe (all working in close proximity to each other) would result in a combined noise level of 64.9 dBA LEQ at 300 feet, as modeled using the RCNM. Unlike demolition and earthmoving activities, concrete pouring equipment could be stationary for more than an hour and positioned near the project property lines. Therefore, NSLUs within 300 feet of the project site could be exposed to temporary construction noise more than 10 dBA above nighttime ambient noise levels, and project nighttime concrete pouring noise would be potentially significant.

I
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

14 4.1.2 Construction Traffic Noise
As stated in Section 3.2.1, project grading would result in approximately 208 daily one-way haul truck trips, or approximately 26 hourly haul truck trips over the course of an 8-hour workday. The closest NSLU to the project site is a single-family residence east of the project site on Woodruff Avenue just north of the railroad tracks (between Firestone Boulevard and Hall Road). As shown in Table 6, this segment of Woodruff Avenue carries 1,342 vehicle trips during the peak hour, of which approximately 54 (4 percent) are heavy trucks. Using the CadnaA and the TNM model, an additional 26 heavy truck trips per hour would temporarily increase the hourly noise level along that roadway from 68.3 dBA to

68.6 dBA. This increase in noise levels of 0.3 dBA would be well below the just perceivable 3 dBA increase level for noisy outdoor environments. Therefore, construction traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.3 Warehouse Operational Noise Generation
The proposed on-site truck circulation routes, loading dock areas, rooftop HVAC units, and rooftop refrigeration condensers would generate elevated noise levels compared to existing conditions. The primary noise sources for the loading dock areas are delivery truck engines idling, truck backup alarms, and TRU engines, as described in Section 3.2.2.

Operation of all noise-generating components was modeled using CadnaA. The project building and four surrounding existing buildings were included in the model. As described in Section 2.5.2, the closest existing NSLU to the project site is a single-family home located approximately 240 feet east of the project site, across Hall Road, Woodruff Avenue, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. In addition, multi-family residences are located approximately 250 feet southwest of the project site, across Stewart and Gray Road; single-family residences are located approximately 300 feet west of the project site beyond a row of industrial businesses; and multi-family residences are located approximately 320 feet east of the project site, across Woodruff Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. Six receivers were placed in the model at the property line of the closest residential properties east, west, and southwest of the project site (R1 through R6). Five receivers were placed in the model at the industrial buildings west and south of the project site (I1 through I5). Two receivers were placed in the model at the commercial buildings east of the project site (C1 through C2). See Figure 4.

As shown in Section 2.4.2, the City’s standard for noise produced on the project site and measured at the receiving property line is a maximum of 5 dBA over the ambient noise level for any period during the course of a 24-hour day (City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(a)). Where the subject noise cannot be discontinued in order to measure ambient noise levels, the maximum permissible steady noise level by sound sources across the property boundary shall not exceed the limits shown in Table 1, above (City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(b)). Because existing condition on the project site include active industrial businesses, ambient noise measurements without noise produced on the project site cannot be made. Three of the modeled residential receivers are close to high volume roadways and the ambient noise levels can be estimated from the noise contours reported in the City General Plan Noise Element (see Table 2, above): receiver R1 is approximately 200 feet from Stewart and Gray Road and within the 65 CNEL contour; receiver R2 is approximately 65 feet from Woodruff Avenue and within the 70 CNEL contour; and receiver R6 is approximately 45 feet from Stewart and Gray Road and within the 70 CNEL contour (City 2005). Because the CNEL calculations include a 10 dBA nighttime weighting, nighttime ambient noise levels for receivers R1, R2, and R6 were assumed to be 10 dBA below the reported CNEL level.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

15 The calculated daytime peak hour noise level results are compared to the City’s noise standard for the maximum permissible level measured at the receiving property boundary in Table 7, Daytime Operational Noise. The CadnaA modeling output tables are included in Appendix C to this report.

Table 7

DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE
Receiver
Number Land Use Ambient Noise
(CNEL)
Project Noise
(dBA LEQ)
City Noise Limit
(dBA)
Exceed
Standard?
R1 Residential 651 59.6 702 No
R2 Residential 701 59.2 752 No
R3 Residential Unknown 39.7 553 No
R4 Residential Unknown 33.5 553 No
R5 Residential Unknown 34.1 553 No
R6 Residential 701 54.6 702 No
I1 Industrial Unknown 59.8 703 No
I2 Industrial Unknown 63.8 703 No
I3 Industrial Unknown 62.1 703 No
I4 Industrial Unknown 67.7 703 No
I5 Industrial Unknown 66.8 703 No
C1 Commercial Unknown 62.4 653 No
C2 Commercial Unknown 64.8 653 No
Source: CadnaA
1 Existing ambient noise based on 2004 traffic noise contours from City General Plan Noise Element, see Table 2 of this report. 2 Noise standard is 5 dBA above existing ambient level Per City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(a). 3 Noise standard is per City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(b) based on receiving land use and time of day, see Table 1 of this report.
dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; LEQ = time-averaged noise level

The project would operate 24 hours per day resulting in nighttime noise generated on the project site.

HVAC systems and refrigeration condensers were assumed to operate for one hour or more continuously at night. For truck circulation and loading dock operations, it is unknown how many trucks per hour would arrive and depart the project site at night. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the TIS estimated the project would result in 98 one-way daily truck trips (LLG 2023). If truck trips were spread throughout the day evenly, the result would be approximately 4 trucks per hour. However, the traffic report estimated that 12 of the truck trips (approximately 12 percent of the daily trips) would occur during the peak afternoon hour (LLG 2023) indicating truck trips would not be distributed uniformly throughout the day. To be conservative in analyzing the highest reasonably foreseeable nighttime noise level, 6 nighttime peak hour trucks (50 percent of daytime peak truck trips) entering and exiting the project site were assumed. The calculated peak nighttime hour noise level results are compared to the City’s noise standard for the maximum permissible level measured at the receiving property boundary in Table 8, Nighttime Operational Noise. The CadnaA modeling output tables are included in Appendix C to this report.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

16 Table 8

NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE
Receiver
Number Land Use Ambient Noise
(dBA LEQ)
Project Noise
(dBA LEQ)
City Noise Limit
(dBA)
Exceed
Standard?
R1 Residential 551 56.6 602 No
R2 Residential 601 56.2 652 No
R3 Residential Unknown 36.7 453 No
R4 Residential Unknown 30.6 453 No
R5 Residential Unknown 31.2 453 No
R6 Residential 601 51.5 652 No
I1 Industrial Unknown 56.8 703 No
I2 Industrial Unknown 60.8 703 No
I3 Industrial Unknown 59.1 703 No
I4 Industrial Unknown 64.7 703 No
I5 Industrial Unknown 63.8 703 No
C1 Commercial Unknown 59.4 653 No
C2 Commercial Unknown 61.8 653 No
Source: CadnaA
1 Existing nighttime ambient noise based on 2004 traffic noise contours from City General Plan Noise Element and removing the CNEL 10 dBA nighttime weighting, see Table 2 of this report. 2 Noise standard is 5 dBA above existing ambient level Per City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(a). 3 Noise standard is per City Municipal Code Section 4606.3(b) based on receiving land use and time of day, see Table 1 of this report.
dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; LEQ = time-averaged noise level

As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, noise levels from the project on-site operational sources would not exceed the limits for land uses in the vicinity of the project at any of the modeled receivers. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.4 Operational Off-Site Transportation Noise Generation The project would generate vehicular traffic along nearby roadways. CadnaA/TNM software was used to calculate the peak p.m. hour noise for the Existing, Existing + Project, Cumulative (year 2024) and Cumulative (year 2024) + Project conditions along project-affected roadways. As noted in the Section

3.2.2, traffic noise levels presented in this analysis are based on traffic volumes provided in the project’s TIS (LLG 2023). The off-site roadway modeling represents a conservative analysis that does not consider topography or attenuation provided by existing structures. The results of the analysis for the Existing and Existing + Project conditions are shown in Table 9, Existing Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels. The results of the analysis for the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions are shown in Table 10, Cumulative (Year 2024) Off-Site Traffic Noise Levels. The CadnaA modeling output tables are included in Appendix C to this report.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

17 Table 9

EXISTING OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Distance to
Nearest
NSLU (feet)
Existing
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
Existing + Project
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
Increase
(dBA LEQ)
Firestone Boulevard
Woodruff Avenue to Stewart & Gray Road 64 71.3 71.3 0.0 Stewart & Gray Road to I-6051 105 70.8 70.9 0.1
Woodruff Avenue
Firestone Boulevard to Hall Road 74 68.4 68.5 0.1
Hall Road to Stewart & Gray Road1 70 69.3 69.6 0.3
Stewart & Gray Road to Washburn Road 77 68.1 68.2 0.1
Washburn Road to Imperial Highway 70 69.3 69.3 0.0
Hall Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue1 40 59.3 60.8 1.5
Stewart & Gray Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue1 55 70.5 70.6 0.1
Woodruff Avenue to Firestone Boulevard 80 67.8 67.9 0.1 Washburn Road
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 35 62.5 62.7 0.2
Imperial Highway
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 63 74.0 74.0 0.0
Woodruff Avenue to I-605 101 69.9 69.9 0.0
Source: TNM
1 No NSLU along this roadway segment, distance and noise level shown for nearest commercial or industrial building.

NSLU = noise sensitive land use; dBA = A-weighted decibels; LEQ = 1-hour time-averaged noise level

Table 10
CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2024) OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Distance to
Nearest
NSLU (feet)
2024
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
2024 + Project
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
Increase
(dBA LEQ)
Firestone Boulevard
Woodruff Avenue to Stewart & Gray Road 64 71.4 71.5 0.1 Stewart & Gray Road to I-6051 105 71.0 71.1 0.1
Woodruff Avenue
Firestone Boulevard to Hall Road 74 68.6 68.7 0.1
Hall Road to Stewart & Gray Road1 70 69.5 69.7 0.2
Stewart & Gray Road to Washburn Road 77 68.4 68.5 0.1
Washburn Road to Imperial Highway 70 69.5 69.5 0.0
Hall Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue1 40 59.2 60.6 1.4
Stewart & Gray Road
Project to Woodruff Avenue1 55 70.5 70.7 0.2
Woodruff Avenue to Firestone Boulevard 80 68.0 68.2 0.2 Washburn Road
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 35 62.6 62.8 0.2
HELIX
Environmenta/Planning -----
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

18 Roadway Segment
Distance to
Nearest
NSLU (feet)
2024
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
2024 + Project
P.M. Peak Hour
(dBA LEQ)
Increase
(dBA LEQ)
Imperial Highway
Bellflower Road to Woodruff Avenue 63 74.1 74.1 0.0
Woodruff Avenue to I-605 101 70.0 70.0 0.0
Source: TNM
1 No NSLU along this roadway segment, distance and noise level shown for nearest commercial or industrial building.

NSLU = noise sensitive land use; dBA = A-weighted decibels; LEQ = 1-hour time-averaged noise level

Impacts would be significant in areas where existing traffic noise at NSLUs exceeds 60 CNEL and implementation of the project would result in an increase of the noise level by 3 CNEL or more (a just perceivable increase in typical noisy environments), or where existing traffic noise is less than 60 CNEL and implementation of the project results in an increase of 5 CNEL or more. As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, the existing traffic noise exceeds 60 CNEL for all road segments except on Hall Road. The maximum traffic noise increase as a result of the addition of project traffic on any analyzed road segment would be 1.5 dBA on Hall Road for both the Existing and Cumulative conditions. The segment of Hall Road analyzed (from Woodruff Avenue to the Project’s western driveway) does not have any NSLUs (Hall Road west of the project site would not carry any project truck traffic and was not analyzed).

The maximum traffic noise increase along a roadway segment with NSLUs would be 0.2 dBA (segments on Woodruff Avenue, Stewart and Gray Road, and Washburn Road) for the Existing conditions.

Therefore, the increase in traffic noise resulting from the addition of project-related traffic would be less than 3 dBA and would not result in a perceptible increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from project-generated traffic would be less than significant.

4.1.5 Significance of Impacts
Project construction equipment noise would be potentially significant if it would occur at night or during other periods with reduced transportation noise, such as Sundays and holidays. Project construction traffic noise, on-site operational warehouse noise, and off-site operational traffic noise would all be less than significant.

4.1.6 Mitigation Framework
Mitigation measure NOI-01 would prohibit project construction noise generating activities during nighttime hours (as defined in the City’s Noise Municipal Code Section 4606.5) and provides procedures to follow if nighttime concrete pouring is required.

Mitigation Measure NOI-01: Construction Activity Limits The project applicant or designated contractor shall obtain permits for project construction activities from the City. The City shall ensure all permits contain restrictions to construction hours, and nighttime work requirements described below.

All construction activity with the exception of concrete pouring as specified below shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and at any time on Sundays or on any City recognized public holiday. Delivery of materials or equipment to the site and construction truck traffic coming to and from the site shall be prohibited during the same hours specified above.

HELIX
Environmenta/Planning --------
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

19 If, due to weather condition (e.g., high temperatures), pouring of concrete at night or on Sundays or on any City recognized public holiday is required, the project applicant or designated contractor shall provide written notification of nighttime/weekend concrete work to all residences located within 300 feet of the project site. The notification shall:
• Be delivered a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencement of nighttime work; • Include the days and hours of upcoming concrete pouring nighttime work; and • Include noise complaint contact information, including phone numbers and email addresses to register noise complaints with both the construction contractor and the City.

The City and the construction contractor shall log all received noise complaints. The construction contractor shall submit to the City a daily log of all noise complaints received, including the date and time of the complaint and address of the complainant (if provided). The City shall work with the construction contractor to respond to noise complaints and limit nighttime work and locations of noise generating equipment to the extent feasible.

4.1.7 Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-01, affected residents would be informed of potential nighttime and weekend disturbances and the duration of those disturbances. However, mitigation measure NOI-01 would not reduce project temporary construction-related noise levels to acceptable limits.

Further, because some of the affected residents within 300 feet of the project site are within the upper levels of a two-story building, other noise-reducing mitigation such as temporary sound walls would have to be unreasonably high (more than 20 feet) to provide adequate noise reduction and would not be feasible.

Therefore, the project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

4.2 ISSUE 2: EXCESSIVE VIBRATION
Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

4.2.1 Construction Vibration
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be conducted by the project. A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller used for gravel or pavement compaction. A vibratory roller could be used up to 25 feet from the closest off-site structure (two commercial buildings to the east). A large vibratory roller can create approximately 0.210 inch per second PPV at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), which would not exceed the 0.4 inch per second PPV threshold for damage to buildings in good repair with gypsum wall boards, for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources. The closest residential building would be a single-family residence appropriately 240 feet east of the project site. A 0.210 inch HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

20 per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.017 inch per second PPV at a distance of 240 feet.1 This would be lower than what is considered a “strongly perceptible” level for humans of 0.1 inches per second PPV. Therefore, although a vibratory roller may be perceptible to nearby human receptors within the commercial building east of the project site, temporary impacts associated with the roller (or other construction equipment) would be less than significant.

4.2.2 Operational Vibration
Land uses that may generate substantial operational vibration include heavy industrial or mining operations that would require the use of vibratory equipment. The proposed warehouse land use does not include equipment that would generate substantial vibration. Therefore, operational vibration impacts are less than significant.

4.2.3 Significance of Impacts
Construction or long-term operation of the project would not excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, and the impact would be less than significant.

4.2.4 Mitigation Framework
Construction or long-term operation of the project would not exceed ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

4.2.5 Significance After Mitigation
Construction or long-term operation of the project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, and the impact would be less than significant.

4.3 ISSUE 3: AIRPORT NOISE EXPOSURE
For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest airports to the project site are Compton Woodley Airport (7.5 miles southwest); Long Beach Airport (7.7 miles south); Fullerton Municipal Airport (8.7 miles southeast); Hawthorne Municipal Airport (11.8 miles west); and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX; 15 miles west). The project site is located approximately 2 miles south of one of the main approach paths to Los Angeles International Airport. However, the project site is not located within the airport influence area, nor within the 65 CNEL noise contour of any of the Los Angeles County airports, including LAX (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission 2022). Therefore, although aircraft may be commonly audible in the airspace around the project site, persons residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from aircraft or airports.

1 Equipment PPV = Reference PPV * (25/D)n (in/sec), where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

21 4.3.1 Significance of Impacts
The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft or airports, and the impact would be less than significant.

4.3.2 Mitigation Framework
The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft or airports, the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

4.3.3 Significance After Mitigation
The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft or airports, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Martin Rolph Acoustic Analyst
Joanne M. Dramko, AICP Principal Noise Specialist, QA/QC Tim Belzman Project Manager

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Noise and Vibration Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project | October 2023

22 6.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 2012. ASHRAE Handbook.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/med ia/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/me dia/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens- sep2013-a11y.pdf.

Downey, City of. Downey, California Municipal Code Chapter 6 – Unnecessary Noises. Available at:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/downey_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/article_iv- chapter_6?view=all#article_iv-chapter_6-section_4600. Accessed January 2023. 2005. Visions 2025 General Plan, Chapter 6 - Noise. Adopted January 25. Available at:
https://www.downeyca.org/our-cit y/departments/community-development/planning/general- plan-map.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2023. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project.

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG). 2023. Transportation Impact Study, Prologis Stewart & Fray Road Warehouse Project. January 19.

Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission. Airports. Available at:
https://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports. Accessed December 2022.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model Version 1.1.

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/. 2004. Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/tnm_v25/.

HELIX
Environmental Planning
Appendix A
Mechanical Equipment Data Sheets
gy Recovery Ventilator)
duct Data
EnergyX
50PG03 - - -28
Ultra High Efficiency Single Package Electric Coolingwith Optional Electric Heat Commercial Rooftop Units with PURONR (R - - -410A) Refrigerant, Optional EnergyXt (Ener
Pro
model shown
~
.Bur11n 11·:· .,/,'t -- -,.l,
Editors'Choice

DEALER DESIGN
AWARDS
,-.,NEWSIGOLD
Puron
the environmentally sound refrigerant
Turn to the Experts.

Operation Air Quantity Limits
50PG03- -16 U
UNIT COOLING (cfm)
50PG Min Max
03 600 1000
04 900 1500
05 1200 2000
06 1500 2500
07 1800 3000
08 2250 3750
09 2550 4250
12 3000 5000
14 3750 6250
16 4500 7500
50PG20- -28 U

COOLING
50PG ELECTR
Minimum Cfm Maximum Cfm
High Hea
20 5000 9,000 Medium He
Low Heat
High Hea
24 5500 10,000 Medium He
Low Heat
High Hea
28 6500 12,000 Medium He
Low Heat
Outdoor Sound Power
UNIT A- WEIGHTED* O
50PG (dB) 63 125 250
03 75.0 82.6 79.9 75.7
04 73.2 79.8 77.2 74.1
05 71.9 79.7 79.6 72.6
06 78.5 82.2 82.6 79.5
07 78.5 87.5 83.0 78.5
08 80.0 91.7 83.6 81.0
09 79.9 89.1 82.7 80.0
12 80.0 90.4 83.1 80.9
14 83.3 86.4 85.9 85.3
16 84.0 90.3 85.2 83.5
20 81.7 90.2 84.8 80.7
24 84.9 90.0 86.3 83.6
28 84.9 90.0 86.3 83.6
LEGEND
db --- D e c i b e l
*Sound Rating ARI or T one Adjusted, A- - -Weighted Sound Power Level in dB. For sizes For sizes 14 - - -28, the sound rating is in accordance with ARI 370 - - -2001. 8 nits
ni
ts
I
C H
t (75
at (5
(25
t (75
at (5
(25
t (75
at (5
(25
(Tot
C TA
5 7
7 6
7 7
7 7
7 8
8 7
8 8
0 3- - -1
HEATING (cfm)

ELECTRIC HEAT
Min Max
600 1000
900 1500
1200 2000
1500 2500
1800 3000
2250 3750
2550 4250
3000 5000
3750 6250
4500 7500
EAT

ELECTRIC HEAT
(Vertical)

ELECTRIC HEAT
(Horizontal)
Minimum Cfm Minimum Cfm
kW) 4,500 5,400
0 kW) 3,750 4,800
kW) 3,750 3,750
kW) 4,500 5,400
0 kW) 3,750 4,800
kW) 3,750 3,750
kW) 4,500 5,400
0 kW) 3,750 4,800
kW) 3,750 3,750
al Unit)
VE BAND LEVELS dB
00 1000 2000 4000 8000

3.3 70.0 64.3 58.4 50.5

0.1 68.0 63.6 58.4 51.9

9.6 66.0 61.4 56.4 48.5

5.7 73.9 68.6 64.0 56.3

6.3 73.8 68.4 63.8 56.5

7.9 75.0 69.9 66.0 59.3

7.7 75.0 70.2 66.3 57.8

7.8 75.2 70.0 66.1 57.6

1.8 78.2 72.2 67.9 59.9

1.1 79.0 73.7 70.5 65.4

9.0 77.6 71.4 66.7 60.7

2.9 80.3 74.9 71.4 66.5

2.9 80.3 74.9 71.4 66.5
2,
the sound rating is in accordance with ARI Standard 270- - - 1995. 50PG
9 Outdoor Sound Power (Total Unit)
with High CFM EnergyX
UNIT
50PG w/ERV
A --- W E I G H T E D *
(dB)
OCTAVE BAND LEVELS dB
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
03 83.0 82.8 81.4 79.7 78.1 77.9 76.5 72.5 70.1
04 82.7 80.2 79.6 79.1 77.3 77.6 76.5 72.5 70.1
05 82.6 80.1 81.1 78.8 77.2 77.4 76.4 72.4 70.0
06 83.8 82.4 83.4 81.6 79.1 78.8 76.9 72.9 70.2
07 83.8 87.6 83.8 81.1 79.3 78.8 76.9 72.9 70.2
08 87.3 92.0 86.8 84.5 82.4 81.8 80.5 78.0 74.2
09 87.2 89.6 86.4 84.1 82.4 81.8 80.5 78.1 74.2
12 87.3 90.8 86.5 84.5 82.4 81.8 80.5 78.0 74.2
14 88.2 87.2 88.0 87.0 84.2 82.7 80.8 78.2 74.3
16 91.4 93.2 92.8 88.2 86.3 85.5 84.4 83.4 78.4
20 91.2 93.1 92.7 87.4 85.8 85.2 84.2 83.3 78.3
24 91.7 93.0 93.0 88.2 86.9 85.8 84.5 83.5 78.5
28 91.7 93.0 93.0 88.2 86.9 85.8 84.5 83.5 78.5
LEGEND
dB --- D e c i b e l
* Sound Rating ARI or tone Adjusted, A- - -Weighted Sound Power Level in dB. For sizes 03- - -12, the sound rating is in accordance with ARI Standard 270- - - 1995.

For sizes 14 - - -28, the sound rating is in accordance with ARI 370 - - -2001. 50PG
10 PHYSICAL DATA
50PG03- -07
BASE UNIT 50PG 03 04 05 06 07
NOMINAL CAPACITY (T ons) 2 3 4 5 6
OPERATING WEIGHT (lb)
Unit* 704 704 775 829 874
Economizer
Vertical 40 40 40 40 40
Horizontal 50 50 50 50 50
Humidi-MiZert Adaptiv e Dehumidification System 22 22 31 27 26 Roof Curb
14-in. 122 122 122 122 122
24-in. 184 184 184 184 184
COMPRESSOR Fully Hermetic Scroll
Quantity 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
Cope
land 3MA
1 1 1
I 42 I 42 I 66 I
R-410A (Puron ® Refrigerant)

TXV TXV TXV

9.0 15.7 16.6
I 13.50 I 25.00 I 22.00 I
Enhanced Copper Tubes, Aluminum Lanced Fins
1…17 2…17 2…17

12.6 12.6 12.6
1…17 2…17 2…17

12.6 12.6 12.6
Enhanced Copper Tubes, Aluminum Lanced Fins

1...17 1...17 1...17
I 6.4 I 9.3 I 9.3 I
Propeller
1…24 1…24 1…24
3500 3500 4500
1/8 1/8 1/4
825 825 1100
300 300 300
nhanced Copper Tubes, Aluminum Double-Wavy Fins, Face Split 2…15 2…15 3…15
I 9.3 I 9.3 I 9.3 I
Centrifugal T ype, Belt Drive

1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9

1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9
Belt Belt Belt
Belt Belt Belt
1200 1600 2000

0.85 0.85 0.85/2.40†

0.85 1.60/2.40† 1.60/2.40†
1620 1620 1725
48Y 48Y 56Y
48Y 56Y 56Y
482-736 596-910 690-978
796-1128 828-1173 929-1261
Ball Ball Ball
2000 2000 2000

1.9-2.9 1.9-2.9 2.4-3.4

2.4-3.4 2.4-3.4 2.8-3.8

6.8 5.5 6.0

5.2 5.0 5.2
1/ 1/ 52 2 /8
1/ 5/ 52 8 /8

49.3 49.3 49.3

AX AX AX

16.2 16.2 16.2

20.2 20.2 20.2

20.2 20.2 20.2
48 59 58
62 69 66
5 5 5
5 5 5
482 596 690
796 828 929
3/4 3/4 3/4
660 ± 10 660 ± 10 660 ± 10
505 ± 20 505 ± 20 505 ± 20
Throwaway
I 4…16 x 20 x 2 I 4…16 x 20 x 2 I 4…16 x 20 x 2 I
1 Oil T ype
Number of Refrigerant Circuits 1 1
Oil (oz) 38 56

REFRIGERANT TYPE
Expansion Device TXV TXV
Operating Charge (lb) — Standard Unit 7.3 19.0
Operating Charge (lb) — Unit with Humidi-MiZer System 11.75 22.70

CONDENSER COIL
Condenser A (Outer)
Rows...Fins/in. 1…17 2…17
Face Area (sq ft) 12.6 12.6
Condenser B (Inner)
Rows...Fins/in. — 2…17
Face Area (sq ft) — 12.6

HUMIDI- - - MIZER COIL
Rows...Fins/in. 1...17 1...17
Face Area (sq ft) 6.4 9.3

CONDENSER FAN
Quantity…Diameter (in.) 1…24 1…24
Nominal Cfm (T otal, all fans) 3500 4500
Motor Hp 1/8 1/4
Nominal Rpm — High Speed 825 1100
Nominal Rpm — Low Speed 300 300

EVAPORATOR COIL E
Rows…Fins/in. 2…15 4…15
Face Area (sq ft) 9.3 9.3

EVAPORATOR FAN
Quantity…Size (in.) Low 1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9
High 1...12 x 9 1...12 x 9
Ty p e D r i v e Low Belt Belt
High Belt Belt
Nominal Cfm 800 2400
Maximum Continuous Bhp Low 0.85 2.40
High 0.85 3.10
Motor Nominal Rpm 1620 1725
Motor Frame Size Low 48Y 56Y
High 48Y 56Y
Fan Rpm Range Low 482-736 796-1128
High 656-1001 1150-1438
Motor Bearing T ype Ball Ball
Maximum Fan Rpm 2000 2000
Motor Pulley Pitch Diameter Range (in.) Low 1.9-2.9 2.4-3.4 High 1.9-2.9 4.0-5.0
Fan Pulley Pitch Diameter (in.) Low 6.8 5.2
High 5.0 6.0
Nominal Motor Shaft Diameter (in.) Low 1/2 5/8
High 1/2 7/8
Belt…P i t c hL e n g t h( i n . ) Low 49.3 49.3
High 49.3 52.3
Belt…Ty p e Low AX AX
High AX AX
Pulley Center Line Distance Min. (in.) Low 16.2 16.2
High 16.2 16.2
Pulley Center Line Distance Max. (in.) Low 20.2 20.2
High 20.2 20.2
Speed Change per Full Turn of
Movable Pulley Flange (rpm)
Low 48 66
High 65 58
Movable Pulley Maximum Full
Turns from Closed Position
Low 5 5
High 5 5
F a c t o r yP u l l e yS e t t i n g( r p m ) Low 482 796 High 656 1150
Fan Shaft Diameter at Pulley (in.) 3/4 3/4
HIGH-PRESSURE SWITCH (psig)
Cutout 660 ± 10 660 ± 10
Reset (Auto.) 505 ± 20 505 ± 20

RETURN-AIR FILTERS
Quantity…Size (in.) 4…16 x 20 x 2 4…16 x 20 x 2
LEGEND
TXV - - - Thermostatic Expansion Valve
*Aluminum evaporator coil/aluminum condenser coil.
{ Single phase/three phase
50PG
I
www.hussmann.com
Proto-Aire Outdoor Protocol
Environmental Beneﬁts Compared to Traditional Rack Systems. - Better energy efﬁciency reduces use of fossil fuels, reduces air pollution. - Signiﬁcantly smaller refrigerant charge reduces use of HFCs. - Signiﬁcantly lower refrigerant leak rate.

HUSSmAnn®
J J ]

PROTO-AIRE
Outdoor Small Footprint Protocol Solution.

Proto-Aire is a compact footprint outdoor Protocol unit with an integrated air-cooled condenser and weatherproof skins. Units can be installed outside next to the store or on the roof. This allows for more ﬂexibility with Protocol store designs and reduces space requirements for equipment inside the store.

Several condenser sizes.

Proto-Aire is sized based on the compressor
load and the heat of rejection requirements for the
compressors. The largest condenser can support
up to 450 MBH at a 20˚F TD.

Features and options.
- Weatherproof outdoor enclosure.
- Factory installed suction ﬁlters and liquid driers.
- Optional factory-installed gas defrost valves
Sustainable Solutions. and winter control.
- Optional Polyﬁn and Electroﬁn coil coating.Protocol is the most widely used - Optional oversized receiver with heat tape refrigeration system directly and insulation.addressing today’s environmental
- Optional hail guards and rain doors. concerns. We are using the phrase “Sustainable Solutions” to underscore All standard Protocol options.Protocol’s important role in helping address environmental issues. Since the Proto-Aire builds upon the Protocol frame, all standard Protocol mechanical and electrical Hussmann is committed to options are available with Proto-Aire.developing advanced technologies that reduce the use of HFCs and
Proto-Aire environmental advantages.improve energy efﬁciency. Protocol is just one of many alternatives - Signiﬁcant reduction in refrigerant charge. we offer to promote sustainable - Signiﬁcant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. solutions. - Better energy efﬁciency in virtually all applications. - Less copper refrigerant piping.
- Fewer braze joints for fewer leaks.

Other advantages.
- Easy to install.
- No machine room needed.
- Lower installation costs.
- Decreases or eliminates the need for EPRs.
- Compact footprint.
) J
Enabling excellence in food retailing.

Proto-Aire dimensions.

L H D Weight
Nomenclature (in) (in) (in) (lb)
3 and 4 Fan 128 56.5 42 2800
6 Fan (Super) 185 56.5 42 3700
.....................................................................

NOTE: We reserve the right to change or revise
specifications and product design in connection with any feature of our products. Such changes do not entitle the buyer to corresponding changes, improvements, additions, or replacements for equipment previously sold or shipped.

For additional resources, contact your representative
or visit www.hussmann.com.
®
LISTED
7 '" Cl.

J
00 OP Vl[W
% .00
Hussmann Corporation
999 St. Charles Rock Rd.
get
on, MO 63044-2483
314.291.2000
www.hussmann.com
Printed in U.S.A. ©2012 Hussmann Corporation ProtoAire_082515 HussmAnn•
12 I
Brid
Ph:

Appendix B
RCNM Output
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2022
Case Description: Downey Prologis
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residence Residential 70 70 70
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 340 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 340 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 340 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 72.9 65.9
Dozer 65 61
Excavator 64.1 60.1
Total 72.9 67.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/12/2023
Case Description: Downey Prologis Night Concrete Pounring ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residence Residential 70 70 70
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Backhoe No 40 77.6 300 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 300 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 300 0
Concrete Pump Truck No 20 81.4 300 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Backhoe 62 58
Concrete Mixer Truck 63.2 59.3
Concrete Mixer Truck 63.2 59.3
Concrete Pump Truck 65.8 58.8
Total 65.8 64.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Appendix C
CadnaA Output

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
On-Site Operations
CadnaA version 2021 - Sound Level Library
Name ID Type 1/3 Oktave Spectrum (dB)
Weight. 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Hussman Proto-Air 3280 Condenser RFRG Li 90.6 93.6 89.6 86.6 84.6 79.6 75.6 89.3 97.2 Carrier 50PG HVAC HVAC Li 90.4 83.1 80.9 77.8 75.2 70 66.1 57.6 80.2 91.9 TRU TRU Lw (c) 99.1 99.1 99.1
Backup Alarm ALRM Li 106.6 106.6 106.6
Truck Idling IDLE Li 96 96 96

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
On-Site Operations
CadnaA version 2021 - Point Source Table
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Freq. Direct. Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (dB) (Hz) (m) (m) (m) (m) HVAC HVAC 80.2 80.2 80.2 Lw HVAC 0 (none) 1 g 396428.56 3754986.04 14.72 HVAC HVAC 80.2 80.2 80.2 Lw HVAC 0 (none) 1 g 396430.22 3754758.7 14.72 HVAC HVAC 80.2 80.2 80.2 Lw HVAC 0 (none) 1 g 396618.73 3754760.35 14.72 Refrigeration Condensor RFRG 89.3 89.3 89.3 Lw RFRG 0 (none) 1 g 396518.83 3754994.48 14.72 Refrigeration Condensor RFRG 89.3 89.3 89.3 Lw RFRG 0 (none) 1 g 396441.81 3754876.26 14.72 Refrigeration Condensor RFRG 89.3 89.3 89.3 Lw RFRG 0 (none) 1 g 396531.75 3754745.83 14.72 Refrigeration Condensor RFRG 89.3 89.3 89.3 Lw RFRG 0 (none) 1 g 396603.44 3754873.61 14.72 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396428.45 3754893.21 2 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396389.24 3754864.58 2 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396495.77 3755007.74 2 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396467.76 3755050.09 2 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396621.02 3754902.15 2 Truck Idling IDLE 96 96 96 Lw IDLE 20 0 10 0 (none) 2 r 396673.29 3754868.87 2 TRU Docks TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 30 0 15 0 (none) 2 r 396428.79 3754893.19 2 TRU Docks TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 30 0 15 0 (none) 2 r 396495.8 3755007.44 2 TRU Docks TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 30 0 15 0 (none) 2 r 396620.65 3754902.15 2 TRU Parking TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 2.5 0 1.25 0 (none) 2 r 396388.79 3754864.63 2 TRU Parking TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 2.5 0 1.25 0 (none) 2 r 396467.74 3755050.47 2 TRU Parking TRU 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw TRU 2.5 0 1.25 0 (none) 2 r 396673.86 3754868.92 2

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
On-Site Operations
CadnaA version 2021 - Line Source Table
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Freq. Direct.

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Area Day Special Night (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (m²) (min) (min) (min) (dB) (Hz) Backup Alarm East Docks ALM 121.7 121.7 121.7 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.6 0 0.8 0 (none) Backup Alarm North Docks ALM 120.7 120.7 120.7 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.2 0 0.6 0 (none) Backup Alarm West Docks ALM 121.9 121.9 121.9 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.6 0 0.8 0 (none) Backup Alarm East Parking ALM 120.7 120.7 120.7 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.2 0 0.6 0 (none) Backup Alarm North Parking ALM 120.1 120.1 120.1 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.1 0 0.55 0 (none) Backup Alarm North Parking ALM 120.2 120.2 120.2 106.6 106.6 106.6 Lw' ALRM 1.1 0 0.55 0 (none) TRU Circulation East TRUC 125.7 125.7 125.7 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw' TRU 1.1 0 0.55 0 (none) TRU Circulation North TRUC 124.3 124.3 124.3 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw' TRU 0.8 0 0.4 0 (none) TRU Circulation West TRUC 125.9 125.9 125.9 99.1 99.1 99.1 Lw' TRU 1.1 0 0.55 0 (none)

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
On-Site Operations
CadnaA version 2021 - Road Source Table
Name M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evenin Night (km/h) (km/h) (dB) (%) (dB) (m) (m) Truck Circulation Hall Road Entry 1 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Circulation S&G Hall Road Entry 1 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Circulation S&G Hall Road Entry 2 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing East Docks TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing North Docks TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing West Docks TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck to East Parking TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck to North Parking TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck to West Parking TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing East Parking TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing North Parking TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Reversing West Parking TruckR 57.2 0 54.2 4 0 2 100 0 100 5 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Circulation S&G Hall Road Exit 1 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Circulation S&G Hall Road Exit 2 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0 Truck Circulation Hall Road Exit 1 TruckC 52.7 0 49.7 4 0 2 100 0 100 13 0 0 1 0 0

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
On-Site Operations
CadnaA version 2021 - Receiver Table
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night Day Night Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Residential 1 R1 59.6 56.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396359.9 3754641.84 1.52 Residential 2 R2 59.2 56.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396806.61 3754970.9 1.52 Residential 3 R3 39.7 36.7 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396286.64 3755120.16 1.52 Residential 4 R4 33.5 30.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396286.28 3754931.56 1.52 Residential 5 R5 34.1 31.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396288.93 3754816.16 1.52 Residential 6 R6 54.5 51.5 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396289.07 3754729.15 1.52 Industrial 1 I1 59.8 56.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396437.65 3754689.45 1.52 Industrial 2 I2 63.8 60.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396654.92 3754692.39 1.52 Industrial 3 I3 62.1 59.1 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396367.31 3755096.3 1.52 Industrial 4 I4 67.7 64.7 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396367.69 3754922.19 1.52 Industrial 5 I5 66.8 63.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396367.71 3754756.41 1.52 Commercial 1 C1 62.4 59.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396734.79 3754741.51 1.52 Commercial 2 C2 64.8 61.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396731.47 3754913.66 1.52

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Existing
CadnaA version 2021 - Road Source Table
Name M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (km/h) (km/h) (dB) (%) (dB) (m) (m) Firestone Blvd 1 68 0 0 2858 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0
Firestone Blvd 2 69.4 0 0 3952 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Woodruff Ave 1 64.7 0 0 1342 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 2 64.7 0 0 1330 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 3 64.6 0 0 1287 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 4 65.1 0 0 1469 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Hall Rd 1 51.3 0 0 163 0 0 8 0 0 40 w12 0 1 0 0
Stewart & Gray Rd 1 65.3 0 0 1516 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Stewart & Gray Rd 2 64.2 0 0 1189 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Washburn Road 1 54.9 0 0 271 0 0 8 0 0 48 w12 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 1 67.5 0 0 2532 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 2 68.1 0 0 2895 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Existing
CadnaA version 2021 - Receiver Table
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night Day Night Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Firestone 1 R1 71.3 -65.9 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397171.58 3754956.76 1.52 Firestone 2 C1 70.8 -67.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397351.87 3754846.62 1.52 Woodruff 1 R1 68.4 -65.5 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396804.23 3754968.92 1.52 Woodruff 2 C1 69.3 -64.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396802.29 3754813.67 1.52 Woodruff 3 C1 68.1 -65.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396759.7 3754486.56 1.52 Woodruff 4 R1 69.3 -65.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396762.28 3753978.11 1.52 Hall C1 59.3 -63.1 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396366.04 3755128.39 1.52 Stewart & Gray 1 C1 70.5 -64.3 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396634.18 3754681.84 1.52 Stewart & Gray 2 R1 67.8 -66.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396998.8 3754824.2 1.52 Washburn R1 62.5 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396517.77 3754323.62 1.52 Imperial 1 R1 74 -63 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396556.8 3753565.04 1.52 Imperial 2 R1 69.9 -67.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397076.96 3753578.78 1.52

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Existing + Project
CadnaA version 2021 - Road Source Table
Name M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (km/h) (km/h) (dB) (%) (dB) (m) (m) Firestone Blvd 1 68 0 0 2871 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0
Firestone Blvd 2 69.5 0 0 4016 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Woodruff Ave 1 64.9 0 0 1388 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 2 65 0 0 1415 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 3 64.7 0 0 1324 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 4 65.2 0 0 1487 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Hall Rd 1 53.3 0 0 260 0 0 8 0 0 40 w12 0 1 0 0
Stewart & Gray Rd 1 65.4 0 0 1553 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Stewart & Gray Rd 2 64.4 0 0 1240 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Washburn Road 1 55.1 0 0 288 0 0 8 0 0 48 w12 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 1 67.5 0 0 2545 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 2 68.1 0 0 2908 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Existing + Project
CadnaA version 2021 - Receiver Table
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night Day Night Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Firestone 1 R1 71.3 -65.9 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397171.58 3754956.76 1.52 Firestone 2 C1 70.9 -67.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397351.87 3754846.62 1.52 Woodruff 1 R1 68.5 -65.5 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396804.23 3754968.92 1.52 Woodruff 2 C1 69.6 -64.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396802.29 3754813.67 1.52 Woodruff 3 C1 68.2 -65.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396759.7 3754486.56 1.52 Woodruff 4 R1 69.3 -65.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396762.28 3753978.11 1.52 Hall C1 60.8 -63.1 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396366.04 3755128.39 1.52 Stewart & Gray 1 C1 70.6 -64.3 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396634.18 3754681.84 1.52 Stewart & Gray 2 R1 67.9 -66.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396998.8 3754824.2 1.52 Washburn R1 62.7 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396517.77 3754323.62 1.52 Imperial 1 R1 74 -63 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396556.8 3753565.04 1.52 Imperial 2 R1 69.9 -67.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397076.96 3753578.78 1.52

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Cumulaitve (2024)
CadnaA version 2021 - Road Source Table
Name M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (km/h) (km/h) (dB) (%) (dB) (m) (m) Firestone Blvd 1 68.2 0 0 2975 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Firestone Blvd 2 69.6 0 0 4143 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Woodruff Ave 1 64.9 0 0 1399 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 2 64.9 0 0 1388 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 3 64.9 0 0 1381 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 4 65.4 0 0 1546 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Hall Rd 1 51.4 0 0 166 0 0 8 0 0 40 w12 0 1 0 0
Stewart & Gray Rd 1 65.4 0 0 1546 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Stewart & Gray Rd 2 64.5 0 0 1265 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Washburn Road 1 55 0 0 278 0 0 8 0 0 48 w12 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 1 67.6 0 0 2596 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 2 68.2 0 0 2965 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Cumulaitve (2024)
CadnaA version 2021 - Receiver Table
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night Day Night Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Firestone 1 R1 71.4 -65.9 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397171.58 3754956.76 1.52 Firestone 2 C1 71 -67.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397351.87 3754846.62 1.52 Woodruff 1 R1 68.6 -65.5 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396804.23 3754968.92 1.52 Woodruff 2 C1 69.5 -64.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396802.29 3754813.67 1.52 Woodruff 3 C1 68.4 -65.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396759.7 3754486.56 1.52 Woodruff 4 R1 69.5 -65.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396762.28 3753978.11 1.52 Hall C1 59.2 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396366.4 3755129.01 1.52 Stewart & Gray 1 C1 70.5 -64.3 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396634.18 3754681.84 1.52 Stewart & Gray 2 R1 68 -66.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396998.8 3754824.2 1.52 Washburn R1 62.6 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396517.77 3754323.62 1.52 Imperial 1 R1 74.1 -63 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396556.8 3753565.04 1.52 Imperial 2 R1 70 -67.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397076.96 3753578.78 1.52

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Cumulaitve (2024) + Project
CadnaA version 2021 - Road Source Table
Name M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (km/h) (km/h) (dB) (%) (dB) (m) (m) Firestone Blvd 1 68.2 0 0 2988 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Firestone Blvd 2 69.7 0 0 4207 0 0 8 0 0 64 w28 0 1 0 0 Woodruff Ave 1 65.1 0 0 1445 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 2 65.1 0 0 1473 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 3 65 0 0 1418 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Woodruff Ave 4 65.4 0 0 1564 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Hall Rd 1 53.4 0 0 263 0 0 8 0 0 40 w12 0 1 0 0
Stewart & Gray Rd 1 65.5 0 0 1583 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Stewart & Gray Rd 2 64.7 0 0 1316 0 0 8 0 0 64 w19 0 1 0 0 Washburn Road 1 55.2 0 0 293 0 0 8 0 0 48 w12 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 1 67.6 0 0 2609 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0
Imperial Hwy 2 68.2 0 0 2978 0 0 8 0 0 64 w24 0 1 0 0

Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
Off-Site Traffic - Cumulaitve (2024) + Project
CadnaA version 2021 - Receiver Table
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night Day Night Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z
(dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Firestone 1 R1 71.5 -65.9 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397171.58 3754956.76 1.52 Firestone 2 C1 71.1 -67.6 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397351.87 3754846.62 1.52 Woodruff 1 R1 68.7 -65.5 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396804.23 3754968.92 1.52 Woodruff 2 C1 69.7 -64.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396802.29 3754813.67 1.52 Woodruff 3 C1 68.5 -65.8 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396759.7 3754486.56 1.52 Woodruff 4 R1 69.5 -65.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396762.28 3753978.11 1.52 Hall C1 60.6 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396366.06 3755129.01 1.52 Stewart & Gray 1 C1 70.7 -64.3 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396634.18 3754681.84 1.52 Stewart & Gray 2 R1 68.2 -66.2 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396998.8 3754824.2 1.52 Washburn R1 62.8 -63.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396517.77 3754323.62 1.52 Imperial 1 R1 74.1 -63 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 396556.8 3753565.04 1.52 Imperial 2 R1 70 -67.4 0 0 x Total 1.52 r 397076.96 3753578.78 1.52 Appendix L
Transportation Impact Study

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY

PROLOGIS STEWART & GRAY ROAD

WAREHOUSE PROJECT
City of Downey, California
September 18, 2023
Prepared for:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
LLG
Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:

A
lfred C. Ying, P.E., PTP David S. Shender, P.E.

Senior Transportation Engineer Principal

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Transportation Study Overview....................................................................................... 1

1.2 Study Methodology ......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status ..................................... 3

2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Existing Project Site ......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Proposed Project Description .......................................................................................... 5

2.3 Project Site Access ........................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Project Parking ................................................................................................................. 8

2.5 City Code Parking Requirements .................................................................................... 8

2.6 Project Trip Generation and Distribution ........................................................................ 9

2.6.1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... 9

2.6.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .......................................................... 10

3.0 Project Site Context ................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network ...................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Pedestrian System ............................................................................................... 17

3.1.2 Bicycle System .................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Transit Network ............................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Vehicle Network .............................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications ..................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Regional Highway System .................................................................................. 23

3.3.3 Roadway Descriptions ........................................................................................ 23

3.4 Traffic Count Data ........................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects .................................................................................. 26

3.5.1 Related Projects ................................................................................................... 30

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth Factor .......................................................................... 35

4.0 CEQA Transportation Assessment ....................................................................................... 36

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Screening ......................................................... 36

4.1.1 Non-Retail Project Trip Generation Screening Criteria ..................................... 36

4.1.2 Retail Project Screening Criteria ......................................................................... 37

4.1.3 Proximity to Transit Screening Criteria .............................................................. 37

4.1.4 Residential Project Screening Criteria ................................................................ 39

4.1.5 Summary of Screening Conclusions ................................................................... 39

4.2 Impact Criteria ................................................................................................................. 39

4.3 VMT Analysis.................................................................................................................. 40

4.3.1 CAPCOA Guidance and Project Design Features .............................................. 40

4.4 CEQA Transportation Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 43

4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 46

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE

5.0 Non-CEQA Analysis ............................................................................................................... 48

5.1 Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................... 48

5.2 Criteria for Non-CEQA Analysis .................................................................................... 49

5.3 Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 50

5.4 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................... 50

5.4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 50

5.4.2 Existing With Project Conditions........................................................................ 52

5.5 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions ....................................................................... 52

5.5.1 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Without Project Conditions ............................... 52

5.5.2 Future Year 2024 Cumulative With Project Conditions..................................... 57

6.0 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................................... 60

6.1 Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................................ 60

7.0 Neighborhood Traffic Impact ................................................................................................ 62

8.0 California Department of Transportation Assessment ....................................................... 63

8.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .................................................................................... 63

8.2 Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing Analysis ............................................................................. 63

9.0 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................................... 67

APPENDICES

APPENDIX
A. Traffic, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Count Data
B. VMT Reduction Calculation Worksheets
C. ICU/HCM and Levels of Service Explanation
ICU Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
HCM Data Worksheets – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE
1–1 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................... 2 2–1 Aerial Photograph of Existing Project Site ............................................................................ 6 2–2 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 7 2–3 Project Trip Distribution (Passenger Cars) ............................................................................ 12 2–4 Project Trip Distribution (Trucks) ......................................................................................... 13 2–5 Net Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ..................................................... 14 2–6 Net Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ..................................................... 15 3–1 Existing Nearby Pedestrian and Transit Facilities ................................................................. 18 3–2 Existing and Proposed Bikeway ............................................................................................ 19 3–3 Existing Transit Routes .......................................................................................................... 22 3–4 Existing Lane Configurations ................................................................................................ 24 3–5 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 28 3–6 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .......................................................... 29 3–7 Location of Related Projects .................................................................................................. 32 3–8 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ............................................. 33 3–9 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ............................................. 34 4–1 Los Angeles County Transportation Analysis Zones ............................................................ 41 5–1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................... 53 5–2 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ..................................... 54 5–3 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................. 55 5–4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 56 5–5 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ....................................... 58 5–6 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ........................................ 59

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
2–1 Project Trip Generation Forecast ........................................................................................... 11 3–1 Existing Transit Routes .......................................................................................................... 21 3–2 Existing Roadway Descriptions ............................................................................................. 25 3–3 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 27 3–4 Related Projects List and Trip Generation ............................................................................. 31 4–1 Summary of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis ......................................................... 44 5–1 Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios, Delays and Levels of Service .............................. 51 6–1 Roadway Segment Analysis .................................................................................................. 61 8–1 Summary of Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing .............................................................................. 66

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY

PROLOGIS STEWART & GRAY ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
City of Downey, California
September 18, 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Transportation Study Overview
This transportation impact study has been conducted to i dentify and evaluate the p otential transportation impacts of the proposed Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse project (“proposed project”). The project site is located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Ha ll Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart & Gray Road in the City of Downey. The proposed project site is generally bounded by Hall Road to the north, Stew art & Gray Road to the south, a dance center and a collision repair business to the east, and industrial use to the west. The project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1.

The transportation assessment follows the requirements set forth by the City of Downey. It is noted that the City of Downey has not yet adopted revised transportation assessment guidelines, however, a vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) assessment has been prepar ed in co mpliance with Senat e Bill (SB) 743. In addition, the City ma intains vehicle Level of Service (L OS) s tandards for l ocal transportation infrastructure. Therefore, the City has identified both C EQA bas ed analysis requirements and non- CEQA based analysis requirements for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects.

Thi s study evaluates potential project-related VMT impacts pursu ant to the screening cr iteria and analysis tools approved for use by the City of Downey. The study also evaluates pot ential project- related effects on LOS at eight (8) ke y intersections in the vicinity of th e project site. T he study intersections were determined in consultation with City of Downey staff. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method was used to determine LOS for the City of Downey study intersections.

This report (i) presents the proposed project ’s existing transportation network context, (ii) presents existing tra ffic vo lumes, ( iii) f orecasts c umulative baseline conditions, (iv) f orecasts p roject- generated traffic, (v) assesses the potential for project-related transportation impacts consi stent with the CEQA complian t and non-CEQA compliant metrics set fort h by the City of Downey, and (vi) recommends transportation mitigation and/or improvement measures, where necessary.

1.2 Study Methodology
The CEQA an d non- CEQA analysis cri teria for this transportation assessment were identified in consultation with City of Downey staff. The analysis criteria were d etermined based on the City’s -1-
-2-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
Guidelines, the proposed project description and location, and the characteristics of the su rrounding transportation system.

On September 2 7, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bi ll (SB) 743 (S teinberg, 2013). Among other things, SB 743 created a process to change the methodology to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA (Publi c R esources Code section 21000 and foll owing) in order to prom ote 1) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, 2) t he development of multimodal transportation networks, and 3) a diversity of land uses. On December 30, 2013, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Re search (O PR) released a preliminary evaluat ion of a lternative methods of transportation analysis , which included analys is based on p roject VMT r ather than impac ts t o intersection LOS. OPR issued other draf t discussion documents in March 2015 and January 2016, suggesting some new r evisions to the s tate CEQA Guidelines. In November 2017, OPR submitted the proposed amendments to the CEQA Guideline s to the State’s Natural Resources Agency (that include a propos ed new Guidelines section 15064.3 which governs how VM T-based analys es of potential traffic impacts should be conducted). On January 26, 2018, the Natural Resources Agency published a Notice of Rulemaking, commencing the formal rulemaking process for the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. On D ecember 28, 2018, the California Offic e of Adm inistrative Law adopted the proposed amendments, formally impleme nting the use of VMT as the metric for transportation analysis under CEQA and providing a grace period allowing local agencies to opt -in to the new metrics. State-wide implementation of the new metric was required by July 1, 2020.

Pursu ant to current stat utes, the County of Los Angeles has adopt ed VMT as the me tric f or determining environmental impacts in compliance with SB 743. On July 23, 2020, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACPW) Traffic Safety & Mobility Division released its VMT-focused transportation analysis metho dology and guidelines, Transportation Impact Anal ysis Guidelines1. Although the City of Downey has not yet adopted revised transportation impact assessment guidelines, a VMT assessment has been prepared to comply with this Sta te legislation.

In general, t he City of Downey may elect to u tilize LACPW’s current Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines as a benchmark for the TIA requirements, with variations as outlined in the City’s future guidelines. While the C ity may formally adopt VMT methodology for envir onmental impact an alysis, it s hould be noted that the City has retained a requirement for local intersection operational analyses. Therefore , this study also ass umes preparation of intersection LOS analysis.

Specifically, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology is utilized to evaluate LOS at the City of Downey signalized study intersections.

1.3 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program Status The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was previously a state-mandated program that was enacted by the California State Leg islature with the passage of Proposition 111 i n 1990 that pr imarily utilized a level of service (LOS) performance metric. Pursuant to C alifornia Government Code §6508 8.3, l ocal jur isdictions may opt out of the C MP requirement w ithout

1 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, July 23, 2020.
-3-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
penalty if a major ity of the local jurisdictions representing a maj ority of the C ounty’s population formally adopt resolutions requesting to opt out of the program. As of November 2019, the majority of local agencies representing the majority of the County’s population have adopted resolutions to opt out of the program. Therefore, the CMP is no longer applicable in Los Angeles County. -4-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Existing Project Site
The project site is located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart & Gray Road in the City of Downey, California. The proposed project site is generally bounded by Hall Road to the north, Stewart & Gray Road to the south, a dance center and a collision repair business to the east, and industr ial u se to the west . T he propos ed project site and general vicinity are sho wn in Figure 1-1. The 29.16- acre project site consists of five parcels (APN’s: 6284-019-013, 6284-019- 014, 6284-019-015, 6284-019-017& 6284-019-016) and is currently developed with five industrial buildings l ocated along Stewar t & Gray Road to the south and Hall R oad to the north, totaling approximately 433,000 square feet. An aerial photograph of the existing project site is presented in Figure 2-1.

Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided via two driveways off Stewart & Gray Road and three driveways off Hall Road that lead to private internal roads, which connect together around the separate buildings. These internal roads provide parking f or employees, parking fo r trailers and containers, recycling equipment and storage of heavy operation equipment.

2.2 Proposed Project Description
The proposed projec t consists of the demolition of t he exist ing buildings (totaling approximat ely 433,000 square f eet) and the construct ion of an industrial concrete tilt building for warehouse/logistics uses totaling 535,685 square feet of building floor area . The proposed pro ject will include 544 automobile parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces and 109 48 foot dock high loading doors. The warehouse building will have a 40-foot clear height.

The new speculative industrial building is intended to be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for col d storage. The facili ty will include up to 20,00 0 square feet of office and 25,000 square feet of mezzanine areas . On -site activities will include :

General indu strial/warehouse with refrigeration and c old storage component for t he purposes of receiving, s toring, shipping of food and/or beverage products, storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last-mile fulfillment and delivery. All activities will occur within the propert y boundary and the ma in indust rial building. The offic e and mezzanine space is intended to be use d for offic e uses ancillary to the warehouse operations. Although the f uture tenancy for the proposed project is currently unknown, the proposed facility is intended to operate 24 hours a day, s even days a week. The concept ual proj ect site plan is shown in Figure 2 -2. The project build-out and occupancy year is anticipated by the year 2024. -5-
-6-
-7-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

2.3 Project Site Access
Access to the project site will be accommodate d by five driveways, including three driveways along Hall Road and two driveways along Stewart & Gray Road. The proposed driveways are described in further detail below:
• H all Roa d Driveways
Three project driveways are planned to be located alo ng the so uth side of Hall Road along the project frontage. The east and west driveways are pro posed to be app roximately 40 feet wide while the middle driveway is proposed to be approximately 45 feet wide. The Hall Road project driveway s will provide both passenge r vehicle access to the on -site park ing areas as well as truck access to the loading areas located north, east, and west of the building.

All three driveways wi ll accommoda te fu ll access (i.e., left and right -turning inbound a nd outbound movements) for passenger vehicles. However, outbound left-turn movements for trucks will not be permitted at the Hall Road project driveways. • S tewart & Gray R oad Driveways
Two proj ect driv eways are planned to be locat ed alo ng the north s ide of S tewart & Gray Road along the project f rontage. Both driveways are proposed to be approximately 40 feet wide and will accommod ate fu ll access (i.e., left and right -turning inbound and outbound movements). The two project driveways will provide both passenger vehicle access to the on-site parking areas as well as truck access to the loading areas located east and west of the building.

All current site access points will be closed, with sidewalk, curb, and gutter reconstructed to the City of Downey’s current standards.

2.4 Project Parking
Based on information provided by the project appl icant team, t he proposed pr oject is planned to provide a total of 544 automobil e parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 48-foot dock high loading door s. The dock doors are planned to be located on the north, e ast, and west sides of the proposed building. Th e parking spaces will be provided in the surface parking areas surrounding the proposed bui lding. Of the total parkin g spaces provided on-site, 12 will be designated as accessible spaces.

2.5 City Code Parking Requirements
A calculation of the Code parking requirement was prepared in accordance with the City of Downey Municipal Code nonresidenti al parking requirements (Section 9712, Nonresidential Parking Requirements). In accord ance with the Municipal Code parking regulatio ns, the off-street parking r
equirements applicable to the proposed project are as follows:
-8-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
• Warehousing 1.0 space per 800 squar e feet of gross floor are a, p lus office space exceeding 30% of gross floor area must meet the parking requirements for office use
_____Source: City of Downey Municipal Code (Section 9712).

Through s trict a pplication of the Municipal Code parking regula tions, the following parking requirement would be calculated for the proposed project. As not ed p reviously i n the proje ct description, the project will consist of the construction of a to tal of 535,685 square feet of building floor area:
• Warehousing: 535,685 S F x 1.0 space/800 SF = rounded to 670 spaces Based on the above calcu lation, the City Code parking r equirement for the project would total 670 spaces. Thus, the proposed project parking supply of 544 automobile parking spaces and 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces would exceed the minimum Code parking requirement.

2.6 Project Trip Generation and Distribution

2.6.1 Project Trip Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Trip rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual , 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), [Washington, D.C., 2021] were utilized to forecast project traffic generation for the proposed proj ect. As noted previously, the future tenant of the proposed warehouse project is n ot yet known. The trip rates f or High-Cube Fulfillment Center Wareho use are amo ng t he highe st rates p ublished in the ITE Trip Generat ion Manual for industrial and warehousing land uses, and are the most appropriate rates to utilize for the proposed project in the absence of tenant information which would support a more specific land use category. In addition, based on information provided by the project A pplicant, approximately five percent (5%) of the proposed 535,685 squa re-foot industrial concrete tilt building maybe occupied by a high- cube cold storage warehouse use. T hus, traffic volumes expected to be g enerated by the proposed project were based upo n average rates per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for High- Cube Fulfillment Center Wareho use land use (ITE Land Use Code 155) and High-C ube Cold Storage Warehouse land use (ITE Land Use Code 157) in general urban/suburban locations.

Trip generati on f orecasts were also prepared for the exist ing indus trial buildings which currently occupy the project site. Based on information pr ovided by the project appl icant team, t he existing industrial use was operat ing at full capacity (i.e., 100% utilization) at the time of the rele ase of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the environmental document. ITE Land Use Code 110 ( General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to fore cast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses, which are planned to be demolished to accommodate the proposed project.

The trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual account for all vehicle trips generated by the land use. In the case of a high-cube fulfillment center warehouse land use, it is e xpected that a -9-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
small proportion of the vehicles access ing the project site would consis t o f delivery trucks and /or tractor-trailer trucks, in addition to passenger vehicles. Information related to truck trips as percent of total vehicle tr ips f or th e proposed high-cube fulfillment c enter warehouse use w as obtained f rom Appendix C of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Supplement, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), [Washington, D.C., February 2020]. It sh ould be noted that the fulfillment center land use has a significantly higher percentage of passenger vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours and daily conditions due largely to the significantly higher number of employees at a fulfillment center compared to the other types of high-cube warehouse uses.

The ratios of trucks to passenger vehicles and trucks by number of axles identified in the Truck Trip Generation Study, City of Fontana, County o f San Bernardino, State of Californ ia, prepared by Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc., August 2 003 for heavy warehouse land uses w ere applied to the general vehicle trip forecast for the existing light industrial uses. Lastly, a passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor was applied to the truck trips based on the number of axles to account for the effect of the larger vehicles on intersection traffic operations.

The trip generation rat es and forecast of t he vehicular trips anticipated to be gen erated by the proposed project are presen ted in Table 2-1. As summarized in Table 2-1, the proposed proj ect is expected to generate a net decrease of 47 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (73 fewer inbound trips and 2 6 more outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of 189 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (187 more inbound trips and 2 more outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 167 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (approximately 84 more inbound trips and 84 more outbound trips) during a typical weekday.

2.6.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project traffic volumes both enter ing and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations:
• The site's proximity t o major tr affic corri dors (i.e ., Hall Road, Stew art & Gray R oad, Woodruff Avenue, Firestone Boulevard, Imperial Highway, etc.); • Expected loca lized t raffic flow pa tterns b ased on adjacent roadw ay ch annelization and presence of traffic signals;
• Existing intersection traffic volumes;
• Ingress/egress scheme planned for the proposed project; and • Nearby population and employment centers.

The general, directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed project are presented in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 for the passenger cars and trucks, respectively. T he forecast week day AM and PM peak hour net project traffic volumes at the study intersections ass ociated with the proposed project are presented in Figures 2-5 and 2-6, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures -10-
Table 2-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]

DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2]

LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Proposed Project
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Sort [3] 508,900 GSF 155 Total Vehicles 3277 359 84 443 238 373 611
- Total Passenger Cars (97% Daily, 98% AM, 98% PM) [4] 3,179 352 82 434 233 366 599 - Total Trucks (3% Daily, 2% AM, 2% PM) [4] 98 7 2 9 5 7 12 - 2-Axle (16.7% of All Trucks) 16 1 0 1 1 1 2
- 3-Axle (20.7% of All Trucks) 20 1 0 1 1 1 2
- 4+-Axle (62.6% of All Trucks) 61 4 1 5 3 4 7
- 2-Axle (1.5 PCE) 24 2 0 2 2 2 4
- 3-Axle (2.0 PCE) 40 2 0 2 2 2 4
- 4+-Axle (3.0 PCE) 183 12 3 15 9 12 21
Subtotal Trucks (PCE Adjusted) 247 16 3 19 13 16 29
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse [5] 26,785 GSF 57 2 1 3 2 1 3 Subtotal (PCE Adjusted) 535,685 GSF 3,483 370 86 456 248 383 631 Less Existing Uses
General Light Industrial [6] (433,000) GSF
110 Total Vehicles (2,109) (282) (38) (320) (39) (242) (281) - Total Passenger Cars (61.20% Daily) [7] (1,291) (173) (23) (196) (24) (148) (172) - Total Trucks (38.80% Daily) [7] (818) (109) (15) (124) (15) (94) (109) - 2-Axle (11.10% of All Trucks) (90) (12) (2) (14) (2) (10) (12) - 3-Axle (36.0% of All Trucks) (294) (39) (5) (44) (5) (34) (39) - 4+-Axle (53.0% of All Trucks) (434) (58) (8) (66) (8) (50) (58) - 2-Axle (1.5 PCE) (135) (18) (3) (21) (3) (15) (18)
- 3-Axle (2.0 PCE) (588) (78) (10) (88) (10) (68) (78)
- 4+-Axle (3.0 PCE)
(1,302) (174) (24) (198) (24) (150) (174)
Subtotal Trucks (PCE Adjusted) (2,025) (270) (37) (307) (37) (233) (270) EXISTING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PCE TOTAL (3,316) (443) (60) (503) (61) (381) (442) NET INCREASE (PCE TOTAL) 167 (73) 26 (47) 187 2 189
[1] Source: ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 11th Edition, 2021. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] ITE Land Use Code 155 (High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Sort) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 6.44 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.87 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 81% inbound/19% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.20 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 39% inbound/61% outbound [4] Vehicle mix based on information contained in ITE "Trip Generation Handbook Supplement", 2020, Appendix C.

A PCE factor of 1.5 was applied to all 2-axle trucks, while a PCE factor of 2.0 was applied to all 3-axle trucks and a PCE factor of 3.0 was applied to all 4 or more axle trucks.
[5] ITE Land Use Code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 2.12 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.11 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.12 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound [6] ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 4.87 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.74 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 88% inbound/12% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.65 trips/1,000 SF of floor area; 14% inbound/86% outbound [7] Based on information contained in the "Truck Trip Generation Study for City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, State of California" prepared by Transportation Engineering and Planning, Inc., August 2003. A PCE factor of 1.5 was applied to all 2-axle trucks, while a PCE factor of 2.0 was applied to all 3-axle trucks and a PCE factor of 3.0 was applied to all 4 or more axle trucks.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-11-
-12-
-13-
-14-
-15-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
2-5 and 2-6 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 (which show the directional distribution of all passenger cars and trucks) , and the project traffic generation forecasts presented in Table 2-1.

It should be noted that the proportion of passenger vehicle and truck trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project differs from the existing site land use . Therefore, net decreases in vehicle trip ends are anticipated to occur for ce rtain turning movements at some of the study inter sections; specifically, where PCE-adjusted truck trip ends represent the dominant trip type assigned to the movement, and the higher proportion of existing truck trips is anticipated to be replaced by a l esser amount of truck trip ends generated by the proposed project. -16-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

3.0 PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
The project site is located within a well-established multi-modal transportation network maintained by t he Cit y of Downey. The f ollowing sec tions provide an ove rview of the transportation infrastructure in the vi cinity of the propos ed p roject, including infr astructure which supports both motorized and non-motorized transportation modes.

3.1 Non-Vehicle Network
Non-vehicular transportation generally encompasses walking, biking, and other active transportation modes. D istinct f acilities a re often provided for the se non-vehic ular m odes. Most prominentl y, paved sidewalks are typically provide d t o facilitate pe destrian t ravel outside of the r oadway. In some cases, bicycle facilities such as painted bike lanes or se parated bike paths are pro vided within the roadway in order to separate bike traffic from vehicular traffic. Roadways which are designed to prioritize non-vehicular transportation mode s utilize complimentary non-vehicular infrastructure in order to promote comfortable, safe travel for b oth pedes trians and bicycl ists. A re view of the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure provided in the vicinity of the project site is provided below.

3.1.1 Ped estrian System
Pedestrian infrastructure consists of facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, curb access r amps, Americans with D isabilities Act ( ADA) compliant ta ctile warning stri ps, and curb extensions, among ot her things. These facilities are provided within the study area at major intersections, including t he Woodruff Avenu e/Stewart & Gra y Road i ntersection. S idewalks are provided along most major cor ridors in the study area, and marked crosswalks, pedes trian signals, and curb ramps are also provided at signalized intersections.

Existing public sid ewalks in closest proximity to the project site are provided on the south side o f Hall Road west of Woodr uff Avenue, on both s ides of Woodr uff Avenu e between H all Road and Stewart & G ray Road, and on both sides of St ewart & Gray Road west of Woodruf f Avenu e.

Existing pedestrian facilities within an app roximate 1,320-foot (0.25 mi le) radius of the project site are presented in Figure 3 -1. Development of the proposed project would not c onflict with the existing pedestrian system.

3.1.2 Bicycle System
Bicycle infrastructure consists of both facilities within the roadway as well as public bicycle parking spaces. The F ederal an d State tran sportation s ystems recognize t hree p rimary b ikeway facilities:

Bicycle Pat hs (C lass I), B icycle Lanes (Class II), and B icycle Rou tes (Clas s III). Bicycle Paths (Class I) are exclusive car free facilities that are typically not located within a roadway area. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) are part of the street design that is dedicated only for bi cycles and identified by a striped lane separating vehicle lanes from bi cycle lanes. Bicycle Routes (Class III) are p referably located on collector and lower volume arterial streets.

Th e existing and proposed bicycle infrastructure in the City of Downey is illustrated in Figure 3-2.

The Southern California Regional Bikeway Shapefile (RBS) identifies potential future bicycle routes -17-
-18-
-19-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
within the City . As shown in Figure 3-2, pot ential bicycle routes in closest proximity to the proposed proj ect site include Wood ruff Avenue , Firestone Boulevard, Stewart & Gray R oad, Washburn Road , and Imperial Highway. Additionally, the Down ey Bi ke Master Plan Implementation Phase 1 Downtown/Transit project u nder Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 19- 14 would include installation of Class II bicycle facilities on nine roadway segments, bicycle parking facilities, and way-finding signs. Develo pment of the proposed project would not conflict with the existing or proposed bicycle system.

3.2 Transit Network
Public bus t ransit servi ce is provi ded within the projec t study area. P ublic bu s trans it service is currently provided by the City of Downey (DowneyLink) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). A summary of the existing transit service in the vicinity of the project site is presented i n Table 3-1. The existing public transit routes in the vicinity of the project site are illustrated in Figure 3-3. As summarized in Ta ble 3-1, a total of seven (7) public transit routes provide service within the project study ar ea. The nearest Metro transit stops are provided on both sides of Firestone Boulevard, west of Woodruff Avenue (within an approximate 0.3-mile walk (north) of the project si te) and at the northwest and sout hwest corners o f the S tewart & Gray Road/Firestone Boulevard intersection ( within an approximate 0.4- mile walk ( east) of th e project site). Transit service at these stops is provided every 15 minutes during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours.

3.3 Vehicle Network

3.3.1 Roadway Classifications
The City of Downey utilizes t he roadway catego ries recognized by re gional, s tate and fe deral transportation agencies. There are four categories in the roadway hierarchy, ranging from freeways with the highest capacity to two-lane undivided roadways with the lowest capacity . The roadway categories are summarized as follows:
• Freeways are limi ted-access an d high speed travel ways in cluded i n the state and federal highway systems. Their purpose is to carry regional through-traffic. Access is provided by interchanges with ty pical spa cing of o ne mile or gr eater. N o local a ccess is provided to adjacent land uses.
• Arterial roadways are major streets that primarily serve through-traffic and provide access to abutting properties as a secondary function. Arterials are generally designed with two to six travel lanes and their major intersections are signalized. This roadway type is divided int o two categories: principal and minor arteri als. Principal arterials are typicall y four-or-more lane roadways and serve both local and regional through-traffic. Minor arterials are typically two-to-four lane streets that service local and commuter traffic. • C oll ector roadways are streets t hat provi de access and traffic circulation within residential and non-residential (e.g., commercial and industrial) areas. Collector roadways connect local -20-

ROADWAY(S)

ROUTE DESTINATIONS NEAR SITE DIR AM PM
DowneyLink - Northeast Northeast Downey Woodruff Avenue, Firestone Boulevard Clockwise 0 0 C/Clockwise 1 2
DowneyLink - Southeast Southeast Downey Woodruff Avenue, Firestone Boulevard, Clockwise 3 2 Imperial Highway C/Clockwise 0 0
Metro 115 Playa Del Rey to Norwalk via Westchester, Inglewood, Woodruff Avenue, Stewart and Gray Road, EB 4 4 Los Angeles, Florence, South Gate and Downey Hoxie Avenue, Firestone Boulevard WB 4 4 Metro 120 El Segundo to Whittier via Inglewood, Los Angeles, Woodruff Avenue, Imperial Highway EB 1 1 Willowbrook, Lynwood, Downey, Norwalk and WB 1 1
Santa Fe Springs
Metro 125 El Segundo to Norwalk via Lawndale, Los Angeles, Woodruff Avenue, Imperial Highway EB 4 3 Compton and Downey WB 3 3
Metro 127 Los Angeles to Downey via Rosewood, Compton and Lakewood Boulevard, Firestone Boulevard EB-NB 1 1 Paramount WB-SB 2 2
Metro 266 Pasadena to Lakewood via Temple City, South El Monte, Lakewood Boulevard, Firestone Boulevard NB 3 3 Pico Rivera, Downey and Bellflower SB 3 3
TOTAL 30 29
[1] Sources: City of Downey (DowneyLink) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) websites, 2022.

Table 3-1
EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES [1]
NO. OF BUSES/TRAINS

DURING PEAK HOUR
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-21-
-22-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
streets to arterials and are typically designed with two through travel lanes (i.e., one through travel lane i n each dir ection) that may acco mmodate on-street p arking. They m ay a lso provide access to abutting properties.
• Local roadways distrib ute traffic within a neighborhood, or similar adjacent neighborhoods, and are no t intended for use as a through- street or a link between higher capacity facilities such as collector or arterial roadways. Local streets are fronted by residential uses and do not typically serve commercial uses. Generally, travel lanes are not striped, and parking may be accommodated on one or both sides of the roadway.

3.3.2 Regional Highway System
Primary regional ac cess is p rovided by the San Gabri el River (I-605) Freeway and the Glenn Anderson (I -105) Freeway a s sh own in Figure 1-1. The I-605 F reeway is a major north-south freeway connecting the I-210 Freeway to the north and I-405 Freeway to the south. In the project vicinity, five to six mixed-flow freeway lanes and one HO V lane a re provided in each direction on the I-605 Freeway with auxilia ry merge/weave l anes provided between some int erchanges.

Northbound and southbound on/off ramps are pro vided to and fr om the I-605 Freeway at Firestone Boulevard i n the project area. The I-105 Freeway an east -west oriented fre eway connecting the LAX/El Segundo area to the west with the I -605 Freeway to the east. In the project vicinity, three to four mixed-flow fr eeway lanes a nd one HO V lane a re prov ided i n each direction on the I -105 Freeway. East bound and west bound on/off ramps are provided to and fr om the I-105 Freeway at Bellflower Boulevard in the project area.

3.3.3 Roadway Descriptions
The current lane configurations and traffic control measures at each study intersection is presented in Figure 3-4. Descriptions of the roadways which comprise the study area are provided in Table 3-2, including the roadway classification, number of lanes, median types, and speed limits designated by the City of Downey.

3.4 Traffic Count Data
Manual counts of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes were conducted at each of the eight (8) study intersections during t he weekday morning (AM) and af ternoon (PM) co mmuter pe riods to determine the peak hour traffic volume s. The manual counts utilized in this transporta tion assessment were conducted in 2016, 2020, and 2021 by various independent traffic count subconsultants at the study intersections from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM to determine the AM a nd PM p eak commute hour s, res pectively. Spe cifically, t raffic counts w ere conducted in 2016 at three (3) study i ntersections and 2020 at two (2) study intersections as part of traffic impact analyses prepared for other projects in the s tudy area. Historic traffic counts for t he remaining three (3) study intersections were not identified through a search of LLG records and data on file with the C ity. Therefore, m anual counts were conducted in October 2021 for the remaining three (3) study intersections.
-23-
-24-
Table 3-2

EXISTING ROADWAY DESCRIPTIONS

TRAVEL LANES MEDIAN SPEED
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION [1] DIRECTION [2] NO. LANES [3] TYPES [4] LIMIT Woodruff Avenue Primary Arterial NB-SB 4 [5], [6] 2WLT 35 to 40 Newville Avenue Local Street NB-SB 2 [5] N/A 25
Hoxie Avenue Collector NB-SB 4 [6] N/A 35
Firestone Boulevard Major Arterial EB-WB 6 to 4 [5], [6] RMI 40 Hall Road Collector EB-WB 2 [5] N/A 25
Stewart & Gray Road Secondary Arterial EB-WB 4 [5] 2WLT 40 Washburn Road Collector EB-WB 2 [5] N/A 30
Imperial Highway Major Arterial EB-WB 6 [5], [6] RMI 40 Notes:
[1] Roadway classifications obtained from the City of Downey General Plan Vision 2025, Circulation Plan , adopted January 25, 2005, and City of Norwalk General Plan Circulation Element , adopted Febuary 29, 1996. [2] Direction of roadways in the project area: NB-SB = northbound and southbound; and EB-WB = eastbound and westbound. [3] Number of lanes in both directions on the roadway.
[4] Median type of the road: RMI = Raised Median Island; 2WLT = 2-Way Left-Turn Lane; and N/A = Not Applicable. [5] City of Downey
[6] City of Norwalk
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-25-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
Based on a review of the collected count data, it was determined that the 2020 traffic count data conducted for Intersection No. 3 (Woodruff Avenue & Stewart & Gray Road) and Intersection No. 4 (Woodruff Avenue & Washburn Road) were subst antially lower due to the Covid- 19 pande mic conditions. In addition, the 2016 traffic count data conduc ted for Intersection No. 6 ( Newville Avenue-Stewart & Gr ay Road & Fi restone Boulevard) were noted to be lower. As a r esult, the traffic count data c ollected at these three intersections were adjusted accordingly to reflect typical conditions of study are a intersections and ensure peak hour traffic flow consistency on a corridor - level basis.

Furthermore, based on re view of the general traffic growth fact ors provided in the L os Angeles County 2010 Conges tion Managem ent P rogram2 (CMP) for RSA 2 2 (Downey) where the study intersections are locat ed, an annual gro wth rate of one percen t ( 1.0%) pe r year has been conservatively applied to bring all count data to the year 2022 existing condition.

The existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes by approach are summarized in Table 3-3. The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6, respectively. For each study intersection, the highest one-hour total traffic volumes (i.e., four consecutive 15-minute time intervals) traversing through the intersection during the 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM time periods we re selected so as to det ermine the respective weekday AM and PM peak hour tra ffic volumes fo r each study intersection. For purposes of the tr ansportation analysis, this common traffic engineering practice ensures that a mor e conservative (i.e., worst case) as sessment of exi sting operating conditions be attained for each study intersection. Therefore, the traffic volumes shown in Figures 3-5 and 3-6 for the study int ersections do not necessarily reflect the same exact one -hour time period during the morning and/or afte rnoon peak commuter conditions (i.e ., one intersecti on’s pe ak hour may hav e occurred between 7: 30 and 8:30 AM, w hile another inter section’s pea k hour ma y have occurred between 7:45 and 8:45 AM). Summary data worksheets of the manual traffi c counts of the study intersections, as well as the available pedes t rian and bicycle counts, are contained in Appendix A.

In addition, 24- hour average daily traffic (AD T) counts we re collected for the roadway segments.

The d aily traffic co unts were collected by a n independent traffi c count subconsul tant on two consecutive weekday s in October 2021. Consistent with the intersection count data, an annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) has been con servatively applied to bring the ADT count data to the year 2022 exi sting condition. Su mmary data worksheets of the daily traffic counts for the roadway segments are also contained in Appendix A.

3.5 Cumulative Development Projects
The forecast of future pre-project conditions was prepare d in accordance to procedures outlined in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines provide two options for developing the future traffic volume forecast:

2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 2010 Congestion Management Program. -26-
Table 3-3
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES [1]

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO. INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
1 Woodruff Avenue/ 10/27/2021 NB 7:30 AM 689 4:30 PM 793 Firestone Boulevard [2] SB 4 45
EB 1,374 1,596
WB 1,752 1,360
2 Woodruff Avenue/ 10/27/2021 NB 8:00 AM 706 5:00 PM 789 Hall Road [2] SB 705 533
EB 85 112
WB 0 0
3 Woodruff Avenue/ 07/09/2020 NB 7:45 AM 865 4:30 PM 758 Stewart and Gray SB 695 636
EB 659 888
WB 461 467
4 Woodruff Avenue/ 07/09/2020 NB 7:45 AM 1,010 4:15 PM 671 Washburn Road SB 706 669
EB 101 167
WB 76 169
5 Woodruff Avenue/ 10/27/2021 NB 8:00 AM 1,030 5:00 PM 895 Imperial Highway [2] SB 703 913
EB 924 1,538
WB 1,399 1,001
6 Newville Avenue- 02/23/2016 NB 7:00 AM 629 4:45 PM 723 Stewart and Gray/ SB 183 154
Firestone Boulevard EB 1,106 1,494
WB 2,093 1,726
7 I-605 SB Ramps/ 02/23/2016 NB 7:15 AM 0 5:00 PM 0
Firestone Boulevard SB 461 445
EB 1,648 1,924
WB 1,947 1,572
8 I-605 NB Ramps-Hoxie Avenue/ 02/23/2016 NB 7:15 AM 403 5:00 PM 666 Firestone Boulevard SB 1,010 852
EB 1,165 1,452
WB 1,252 1,094
[1] Counts adjusted 1% per year to 2022 conditions.
[2] Counts conducted by Counts Unlimited
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-27-
-28-
-29-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
“(A) A list of pas t, present, and pro bable future projects producing r elated or cumulative impacts, including, if ne cessary, those projects outside the control of the [lead] agency, or
(B) A summa ry of pr ojections conta ined in an adopt ed local, regional or s tatewide plan, or related plann ing docume nt, t hat describes or evalu ates conditions contributing to th e cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general pl an, regional transportation plan, or pl ans for the reduction of greenhouse gas em issions.

A sum mary of p rojections may als o be contai ned in a n adopted or certified pri or environmental d ocument fo r su ch a plan . Such proje ctions may be suppl emented with ad ditional information such as a regio nal modelin g program . Any s uch document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.”
Although the CEQA Guidelines do not strictly apply to the local transportation assessment required by the City of Downey, this traffic analysis provides a highly conservative estimate of future pre- project traffic volumes as it incorporates both the “A” and “B” options for purposes of developing the forecast.

3.5.1 Related Projects
A for ecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area (i.e., within an approximate one-mile radius from the project site). With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impacts of all ongoing development. The related projects research was based on information on file with the City of Downey Community Develop ment Department and the City of Norwalk Economic Development Program. The list of related projects in the project site area is presented in Table 3-4.

The location of the related projects is shown in Figure 3-7.

Traffic volume s exp ected to be gene rated by the r elated projects were calculated using rates provided in the Ins titute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual3. The related projects’ respective traffic generation for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 3-4. The r elated project s traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the street system based on the projects’ locations in relation to the st udy intersections, their proximity to major traffic corr idors, proposed land us es, nearby population and employment centers, etc. The anticipated distribution of the r elated projects traffic volumes t o the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3-8 and 3- 9, respectively.

3 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2021. -30-
Table 3-4
RELATED PROJECTS LIST AND TRIP GENERATION [1]

PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
MAP PROJECT PROJECT NAME/NUMBER LAND USE DATA DATA TRIP ENDS [2] VOLUMES [2] VOLUMES [2] NO. STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL City of Downey
D1 Approved 12021 Woodruff Avenue Truck Terminal 44,162 GSF [3] 232 (5) 58 53 41 14 55 D2 Under 12120 Woodruff Avenue Warehouse 20,000 GSF [4] 34 2 1 3 1 3 4 Construction
D3 Proposed 12850 Woodruff Avenue Senior Housing 62 DU [5] 201 4 8 12 9 7 16 D4 Proposed 10361 Foster Road Multi-family Housing 47 DU [6] 317 5 14 19 15 9 24 D5 Under Starbucks Coffee Shop 1,698 GSF [7] (81) 1 8 9 (9) (9) (18) Construction 9002 Firestone Boulevard
D6 Proposed 9644 Washburn Road Manufacturing 14,000 GSF [8] 67 8 2 10 3 7 10 D7 Under 9066 Firestone Boulevard Hotel 140 Occ. Rooms [9] 1,712 49 38 87 50 52 102 Construction
City of Norwalk
N1 Approved Costco Car Wash Car Wash 3,675 GSF [10] 520 N/A N/A 0 26 26 52 12500 Hoxie Avenue
N2 Proposed Rosecrans Carwash Car Wash 3,819 GSF [10] 540 N/A N/A 0 27 27 54 10710 Firestone Boulevard
TOTAL 3,542 64 129 193 163 136 299
[1] Source: City of Downey, Community Development Deartment, and the City of Norwalk, Economic Development Program, except as noted below. ITE "Trip Generation Manual", 11th Edition, 2021. [2] Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3] Source: Transportation Impact Analysis for the 12021 Woodruff Avenue Industrial Building Project, prepared by Dudek, October 2020. [4] ITE Land Use Code 150 (Warehouse) trip generation average rates. [5] ITE Land Use Code 252 (Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily) trip generation average rates. [6] ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit) trip generation average rates. [7] Source: Starbucks 9002 Firestone Boulevard Project Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Ganddini Group, Inc. [8] ITE Land Use Code 140 (Manufacturing) trip generation average rates. [9] ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates. [10] ITE Land Use Code 948 (Automated Car Wash) trip generation average rates. No daily trip rates, assumed 10% of PM Peak Hour totals.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-31-
-32-
-33-
-34-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

3.5.2 Ambient Traffic Growth Factor
Horizon year b ackground t raffic g rowth e stimates ha ve been calcul ated using an ambient traffic growth factor. The a mbient traffic growth factor is intended to i nclude unknown related projects in the study area as wel l as account for typical growt h in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. An annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) per year was selected for this analysis.

Therefore, app lication of this one percent ( 1.0%) annual ambient growth facto r in addi tion to the forecast traffic gener ated by t he related projects allo ws for a very conservative fo recast o f futu re traffic volumes in the project s tudy area as incorporation of both (i.e., an ambient traffic growth rate and a detailed list o f cumula tive development projects) i s expected to overs tate potential future traffic volumes.
-35-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

4.0 CEQA TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
The State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued proposed updates to the CEQA guidelines in November 2017 that amends the Appendix G question for t ransportation impacts to delete reference to vehicle delay and level of service and instead refer to Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines asking if the p roject will r esult in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (VM T). The California Natural Res ources Agency certified and adopted the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in December of 2018, and as of July 1, 2020 the provisions of the new sect ion are in effect statewide. Concu rrently, OPR developed the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts i n CEQA (December 2018), w hich provide s non -binding recommendations on the implementation of VMT methodology which has significantly informed the way VMT analyses are conducted in the St ate. The City of Downey has not formally adopted VMT methodology, screening criteria , or thresholds for VMT analysis of land use development projects within its jurisdiction. Instead, the City follows the methodology set forth in the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines4 (“County Guidelines”).

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Project Screening
Traditionally, public agencies hav e set certain t hresholds to determ ine w hether a proj ect r equires detailed transportation analysis or if it could be assumed to have less than significant environmental impacts without a dditional study. Consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR in the Technical Advisory, the County Guidelines recognize four screening criteria which may b e applied to s creen proposed projects out of de tailed VMT analysis. Propos ed project s are not required to satisfy all of the screening criteria in order to screen out of further VMT analysis; satisfaction of one criterion is sufficient for screening purposes. The following sections provide a detailed explanation of each screening criteria as it relates to the proposed project.

4.1.1 Non-Retail Project Trip Generation Screening Criteria Section 3.1.2.1 of the C ounty Guide lines states that: “If the answer is no to the quest ion be low, further analysis is not required, and a less than significant determination can be made. • Does the development project generate a net increase of 110 or more daily vehicle trips?” The County Guidelines further indicate that a proposed project’s daily vehicle trip generation should be estimated using the most recent edi tion of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, or through use of empirical trip generation data if the project’s land use is not listed in the Manual.

As pr esented in Table 2-1, the proposed project is forecast to generate a n et increase of 1,168 daily non-PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (i.e., 3,277 project trips – 2,109 existing trips = 1,168 net new trips) .

Application of the PCE -adjustment factors also r esults in a net increase of 167 da ily PCE-adjusted trips. The answer to the screening question is “Yes”; therefore, the non-retail project trip generation screening criterion is not satisfied.
-36-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

4.1.2 Retail Project Screening Criteria
New local serving retail development typically redistributes shopping trips ra ther than creating new ones. By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and improving retail destination proximity, local serving retail developments tend to s horten trips and re duce VMT, and may be presum ed to cause less than significant impacts. Consistent with OPR’s guidance, the County assumes that retail projects of any type which are less than 50,000 square feet may be considered local serving retail.

Therefore, Section 3.1.2.2 of th e County Guidelines states: “A pro ject that contains a local serving retail use is assumed to have less than significant VMT impacts for the retail portion of the p roject.

If the answer to the following question is no, a less than significant determination can be made for the portion of the project that contains retail uses.
• Does the project contain retail uses that exceed 50,000 square feet of gross floor area?” The proposed project does not include any retail components; therefore, this screening criterion does not apply.

4.1.3 P roxi mity to Transit Screening Criteria
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) s tates in part: “Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a l ess than signif icant t ransportation impa ct.” In keepin g w ith the statutory presumption of les s th an significan t impacts due t o near by high-qu ality tr ansit, the County Guidelines include a scr eening criterion based on proximity to tra nsit. Consi stent with the recommendations p rovided by OP R, the County also notes cert ain project -specific o r location- specific information which might indicate that the presumption is not appropriate.

Thus, Section 3.1.2.3 of the County Guideline s states t hat: “ If the project i s loc ated near a maj or transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, the following question should be considered:
• Is the project located within a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop5 or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor6?
If the answer to t he ab ove ques tion is y es, t hen the foll owing subsequent que stions shoul d be considered:
• Does the project have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) less than 0.75? • Does the project provide more parking than required by the County Code?

4 Los Angeles County Public Works, “Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines”, July 23, 2020. 5 Public Resources Code Section 21064.3: ““Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following: (a) An existing rail or bus rapid transit station. (b) A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. (c) 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.
6 Public Resources Code Section 21155(b): “For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” -37-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
• Is the project inconsistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS?
• Does the project repl ace residential unit s set aside f or l ower i ncome households w ith a smaller number of market-rate residential units?
If the answer to all four subsequent questions is no, further analysis is not required, and a less than significant determination can be made.”
The project site is located within a hi gh quality transit corridor. As described in Section 3.2, transit service along Firestone Boulevard is provided every 15 minute s during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. The project s ite is located within a 0.5-mile walking distance from existing transit sto ps at the Woodruff A venue/Firestone Boul evard intersection and the Stewart & Gray Road/Firestone Boulevard intersection. Therefore, the answer to the first q uestion is “Yes”, and the subsequent questions should be considered:
• Does the project have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) less than 0.75? Yes. The project will have an FAR of 0.42 (535,685 total building SF/1,270,210 total site SF = 0.42), which is less than 0.75.
• Does the project provide more parking than required by the County Code? Yes. The proposed project ’s parking suppl y was comp ared to the City of Downey’ s Municipal Code since the County’s Code is not applicable to the project site. As presented in Section 2.5, the Downey Municipal Code parking requirement for the proposed project is 670 parking spaces . The project propos es to pr ovide a tota l of 799 parking spaces ( i.e., 544 automobile parking spaces and 255 tr ailer/container parking spaces) , therefore the project provides more parking spaces than required by the City’s Municipal Code. • Is the project inconsistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS?
No. The project site is currently zoned for Manufacturing (M-2). Downey Municipal Code Section 9318.04 lists warehousing as a permitted land use in M-2 zones. Since the project is consistent with the City’s adopted zoning, and is not expected to result in substantial changes to the existing transportatio n network/infrastructure, it is assumed t o be consistent with the land use and transportation network assumptions incorpor ated i n the Southern California Council of Government ’s (SC AG) Region al Transportation Plan and Sus tainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).
• Does the project replace residential units set aside for lower incom e households with a smaller number of market-rate residential units?
No. The existing project site is currently occupied by five industrial buildings, which will be removed to accommodate the proposed project . The project w ill not result in the loss of affordable housing units.
-38-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
Two of the answers to th e above subsequent questions are “Yes”. As stated above, the answer to all four questions must be “ No” in order to satisfy the screening criter ion. Therefore, the proximity to transit screening criterion is not fully satisfied.

4.1.4 Residential Project Screening Criteria
In the Technical Advisory, OPR r efers to resea rch i ndicating that low-income housing in i nfill locations gener ally improves the jobs-housing match, shortening commute s and re ducing VMT.

OPR asserts that evidence supports presuming less than significant transportation impacts for 100% affordable residential developments, and that a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for a lead agency to find a less than significant impact on VMT, ther eby screening out of detailed VMT analysis.

Consistent with the recommendations provided by OPR, Section 3.1.2.4 of the Co unty Guidelines indicate that certain projects which further the State’s affordable housing goals are presumed to have less than s ignificant imp acts on VMT. T he Guidelines state: “If the project requ ires di scretionary action and the answer is yes to the question bel ow, further analysis is not required, and a les s than significant determination can be made.
• Are 100 % of the units, excluding manager’ s units, set aside for lower income households?” The proposed project does not include any residential or low-income housing components; therefore, this screening criterion does not apply.

4.1.5 Summary of Screening Conclusions
The propos ed p roject does not sat isfy a ny o f t he f our screening c riteria stated in the County Guidelines and is not screened out of further analysis. Therefore, a VMT analysis is required in order to determine whether the proposed project will result in any significant transportation impacts.

4.2 Impact Criteria
The County Guidelines provides the following i mpact criteria for office land uses: “ The project’s employment VMT pe r employee7 would not be 16.8% below t he existing employment VMT per employee for the Baseline Area in which the project is located.” While the proposed project is not an office project , employees are ex pected to be the main source of VMT generated by the project .

Therefore, the office land use impact criteria presented above is applicable to the proposed project.

The proposed project is located in the South County Baseline Area, which generally consists of the region of Los Angeles County which is situated below the S anta Susana and Sa n Gabriel Mountain Ranges. The County Guidelines state that the South County employment VMT baseline is 18.4 VMT per employee. Therefore, the threshold of 16.8% below the baseline employment VMT is 15.3 VMT per employee. A significant tr ansportation impact wo uld resu lt if the proj ect VMT exceeds 15.3 VMT per employee.

7 “Employment VMT is the VMT generated by Home-Based Work trip attractions.” -39-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
As of the preparation of this report, Los Angeles County is preparing revised VMT thresholds for use in determining the significance of VMT impacts in response to further guidance from OPR. It is understood t hat the revised thresholds will be appl ied County-wi de, r ather than separated by the North or S outh C ounty B aseline areas . Based on coordinat ion with Los A ngeles County Public Works staff, it is further understood that the current South County th resholds are mo re environmentally pr otective (i .e., r eflect a lower VMT threshold) than the forthcoming revi sed thresholds. Therefore, continuing to apply the current South County t hresholds to th e proposed project results in a conservative VMT impact analysis.

4.3 VMT Analysis
The Southern California As sociation of G overnments Regional Tr avel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM) has been utilized to determine the employment VMT per employee for the proposed project.

The proje ct site is located with in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 21791300. The T AZ is generally bounded by Firestone Boulevard to the north, Woodruff Avenue to the east, Stewart & Gray Road to the south, and Lakewood Boulevard and Bellflower Boulevard to the west as illustrated in Figure 4-

1. The existing land uses within the T AZ includes a mix of residential, commercia l, and industrial land uses. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the land uses assumed for the TAZ, and the existing VMT per employee for the TAZ is an adequate proxy for the VMT per employee expected to be generated by the proposed project. Based on the SCAG RTDM model output for TAZ 21791300, the proposed project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of 19.2 VMT per employee.

4.3.1 CAP COA Guidance and Project Design Features
The Calif ornia Air Pol lution Control Officers Assoc iation’s ( CAPCOA) Handbook for A nalyzing Greenhouse Gas E missions R eductions, Assessing C limate Vu lnerabilities, and A dvancing Health and Equity 8 (“2021 Handbook”) provides a co mprehensive set of guidelines for asse ssing a nd quantifying reductions in green house gas emissions. The emissions reduction measures are grouped by emission sector into nine categories, including t ransportation, energy, water, and other r elated areas. Transportation emissions can be reduced by improv ing the emissions profile of the v ehicle fleet, or by reducing VMT. Reductions in VM T are a chieved when any of t he following occurs: 1) vehicle ownership declines, 2) vehicle trips are reduced, 3) vehicle trip lengths are reduced, or 4) any combination of the first three variables. The 2021 Handbook lists 30 quantified measures covering a total of six transportation subsectors, including land use , trip reduction programs, parking or road pricing/management, neighborhood design, transit, and clean vehicles a nd fuels. The majority of the measures quantified in the 2021 Handbook aim to reduce VMT, although two strategies are aimed at improving the emissions pro file o f the vehicl e fleet and thus do not result in quant ified VMT reductions. The VMT reducing strategies ar e broadly referre d to as tr ansportation demand management (T DM) strategies due to th e focus on reducing the amount of a utomobile travel generated by a project.

8 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Final Draft, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, December 2021, adopted December 15, 2021.
-40-
-41-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
The 2021 Handbook acknowledges that interact ions be tween transportation meas ures are com plex and some times counterintuitive, whereby combinin g measures can ha ve substantive impact on reported emissions re ductions. Therefore, in order t o safeguard t he accuracy and reliability of the methods, certain rules are recommended when combi ning reducti ons achieved by transportation measures. First, the quantified measures may be applied at one of two s cales of appli cation: 1) the Project/Site scale, which r efers to measures that reduce VMT at the scale of a parcel, employer, or development proje ct, or 2 ) the Plan/Community scale, which refer s to measures that reduce emissions at the scale of a neighborhood (e.g., specific plan, general p lan, or cli mate action plan), corridor, o r entire munici pality (e.g., city- or county-level). A ccording to t he 2021 Han dbook, measures from different scales of application should never be combined. Second, the effectiveness of multiple measures within a subsector should be multiplied (i.e., not added) in order to determine a combined level of effectiveness. Each quantified measure has a maximum allo wable reduction, and in tu rn each subse ctor ha s a maximum allowable reduct ion which is in tended to ensure that emissions reductions are not double counted when measures within the subsector are combined. The subsector maximums vary by scale of appli cation. Finally, ther e is limited research dir ectly analyzing the combine d VMT im pact from implementation of all , o r a majority, of transportation sector measures. However, the 2021 Handbook adopts a 70 percent (70%) maximum for the combined VMT reduction from th e following f our subsector s: land use, neig hborhood design, parking or road pricing/management, and transit. The multi-subsector maximum does not include the trip reductio n prog ram subsector, since the se measures are implemented by individual employers and not as directly correlated with place type as the other subse ctors. For th e purpose o f this VMT analysis, measures at the Project/Site scale of application were determined to be the most appropriate for the proposed project.

Certain TDM strategies may qualify as a project design feature (PDF). Generally, PDFs are those measures which are requ ired in order to comply with loca l ordina nces, affo rdable housing incentives, state law, etc. PDF s also include reductions in VMT that are i nherent to the proposed project, such as reductions that result from changes in land use mix, planned parking supply, etc. The following TDM strategies have been determined to be applicable as project design features:
• T-2. Increase Job Density
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs compared to the average job density in the country. When reductions are being calculated from a bas eline derived from a travel demand model, the job density of the relevant TA Z is used for the compar ison instead. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing job density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in VMT.

The proj ect VMT f orecast is derive d f rom the SCA G RTDM output dat a. Therefore, t he reduction in VMT that is expected to result due to the development of the proposed project is determined by comparing the existing job densi ty in TAZ 21791300 without and with the -42-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
proposed project. The number of existing jobs and acres in the TAZ was ob tained from the RTDM. The number of jobs with the propos ed project was developed based on trip rates provided by ITE for the proposed projec t and for the existing land use, resulting in a forecast net increase of 2,097 employees in the TAZ.

The project design feature described above is ex pected to result in a 9.9 percent (9.9%) reduction in VMT generated by the proposed project. Calculation and summary worksheets for the VMT reduction associated with the pro ject design feature is provided in Appendix B . Application of the VMT reduction to the baseline VMT forecast derived from the RTDM results in the following VMT forecast:
• The proposed proj ect is forecast to generate 17.3 VMT per employee (i.e., 19.2 VMT/employee * (1-0.099) = 17.3 VMT/employee), when ac counting for project design features.

The forecast of proje ct-generated VMT per employee exceeds the South County threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee; therefore, the proposed project is e xpected to resu lt in a signifi cant VMT impact. A summary of the project-level VMT analysis is presented in Table 4-1, which presents the baseline VMT forecast and the VMT reductions due to project design features.

4.4 CEQA Transportation Mitigation Measures
As desc ribed ab ove, based on the baseline VMT forecasts f rom RTDM and a pplication of appropriate VMT reductions due to project design features, the proposed project is expected to result in a significant VMT imp act. CE QA r equires identification o f mitigation me asures to r educe a significant environmental impact to the greatest extent possible. The 2021 Handbook wa s reviewed to identify any additional TDM measures which would further mitigate the project VMT impact. The measures were reviewed f or applicability to the propose d project based on land use type, location, and feasibility of i mplementation. The TDM str ategies which have been selected for the proposed project as VMT mitigation measures are described in further detail below. • T - 7. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
This measure reflects implementation of a marketi ng strategy to promot e the CTR.

Information sharing and marketing educates employees about their travel choices to and from the location and promotes alternatives to driving such as carpooling, taking trans it, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. Effective marketing strategies incorpo rate the following features or similar alternatives:
o On-site or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o On-site or online transit pass sales.
o Guaranteed ride home service.
-43-
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS [1]

VMT ANALYSIS CONDITIONS VMT
Baseline VMT per Employee from SCAG RTDM [2] 19.2
VMT Reductions Due to Project Design Features [3] -9.9% Project-Generated VMT per Employee [4] 17.3
Significant Impact? (Yes/No) [5] YES
VMT Reductions Due to Mitigation Measures [3] -11.90%
Project-Generated VMT per Employee After Mitigation [6] 15.2 Significant Impact? (Yes/No) [5] NO
[1]
[2]
[3] The VMT reduction calculations are presented in Appendix B. [4] Baseline VMT * (1-0.099) = Project-Generated VMT
[5]
[6] Project-Generated VMT * (1-0.119) = Project-Generated VMT After Mitigation A significant impact occurs when the project-generated VMT per Employee exceeds the South County threshold of 15.3 VMT per Employee.

The VMT analysis presented in this table, including all adjustments and VMT reductions, is described in detail in Section 4.0.

Baseline VMT per employee obtained from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM) for transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 21791300.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-44-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
The project applicant should provide information on available travel options to and from the project site in a clear and easily accessible location (e.g., a bulletin board in a common employee area), including information on where transit passes may be purchased online or in person. The project applic ant should also designate an employee transportation coordinator who will be able to provid e information and/or administer a guaranteed ride home s ervice.

Such services may co nsist o f providing free or subsidized rides upon r equest via taxi s or other transportation network companies (TNC) such as Uber or Lyft. • T -8. Provide Ridesharing Program
This measure reflects implementation of a r idesharing progr am. Ridesharing encoura ges carpooled v ehicle trips in place o f single- occupancy veh icle trips , ther eby r educing the number of t rips and VMT. Ridesharing may b e promoted through a multif aceted approach, such as des ignating parking spaces for ri desharing/carpooling vehicles, dedi cating loa ding and waiting zones, and coordinating rides.

The project applicant should provide des ignated park ing spaces for carpool vehic les in a convenient/preferential location, and a designated waiting area for employees participating in ridesharing which is comfortable and convenient. The project applicant should facilitate the process of arranging ridesharing or carpooling mat ches, either through a website/app or via the employee transportation coordinator (refer to measure T-7 above). • T -10. Provide End-of- Trip Bicycle Facilities
This measure reflects provision of end -of-trip bicycle facilities such as secur e bike parking, showers, and personal lockers. Providing and maintain ing securing bike par king and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT.

Current resea rch indicates t hat employees are m ore likely to commute to work by bic ycle when showers and personal lockers ar e provided. However, the project applica nt should at a minimum provide secure bicycle parking (e.g., bicycle lockers) in an easily accessible, well- lit location.

The mitigation measures described above are expected to result in an 11.9 percent (11.9%) reduction in commute VMT generated by the pr oposed project. Calculation and summary workshe ets for the VMT reductions associated with these mitigation measures are provided in Appendix B . Since the VMT per employee analysis for the proposed project is based on ho me-based w ork trips (i.e., commute trips), the 11.9% reduction in commute VMT equates to an 11.9% reduction in VMT per employee. Application of the 11.9 % VM T reduction would therefore result in the following project VMT after mitigation:
• The proposed project is expected to generate 15.2 VMT per employee (i.e., 17.3 VMT/employee * (1-0.119) = 15.2 VMT/employee ) with implementation of mitigation measures.
-45-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
The VMT reductions due to mitigation measures and the resulting project -level VMT per employee are summarized in Table 4-1. The proposed project’s mitigated VMT per employee would fall below the threshold of 15.3 VMT per employe e. Ther efore, wit h implementatio n of th e mitigation measures, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant VMT impact.

It is recommended that the projec t applicant prepare a formal TDM Plan for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The TDM Plan shoul d identify the TDM measures that will be imp lemented for the project site, and should include documentation of how both physical measures (e.g., bi ke lockers, designated carpool parking spac es, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home program, employee transp ortation coordinator, etc.) will be provided. The TDM Plan should be implemented for the life of the project. If the project site owner or ten ant proposes to provide dif ferent TDM measures after City approval of the TDM Plan, a new TD M Plan should be submi tted for review and approval , and an analysis should be provided to demonstrate that the selected measures are expected to achiev e the same trip and VMT reductions required by the analysis presented herein.

4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The County’s Guidelines state that short-term effects are evaluated in the detailed project-level VMT analysis, while long-term or cu mulative ef fects are determined through consis tency with SCAG’s current RTP/SCS, which is called Connect SoCal. Connect SoC al is t he regional plan that demonstrates complian ce with air quality co nformity requirements and greenhous e gas (GHG) reduction targ ets. As suc h, proj ects t hat ar e consistent with this plan i n te rms of de velopment location, density, and intensity are pa rt of the regional solution for me eting air pollutio n and GHG goals. Projects that are deemed to be consistent would have a less than significant cumulative impact on VMT. Developments in a location where the RTP/SCS does not specify any development may indicate a sig nificant impact on transportation. However , if a project does not demonstrate a significant impa ct in the project impact an alysis, a l ess th an s ignificant impact i n the cumula tive impact analysis can also be determined. Projects that fall under an efficiency-based impact threshold (e.g., residentia l VMT per capita, employment VMT per employee, or tot al VMT per servic e population) are already shown to align with the long-term VMT and GHG r edu ction goals. Land use projects that demonstrate a pro ject-level impact and whi ch are not found to be consiste nt with the SCAG RTP/SCS could have a significant transportation impact.

The Technical Advisory pr ovides the following additional discussi on of cum ulative impacts:
“[M]etrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on res idential and office projects), cannot be summed bec ause they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulati ve impact distinct from the project impact.

Accordingly, a finding of a less -than-significant project impact would imply a less than signifi cant cumulative impact, and vice-versa.”
-46-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
The proposed project ha s been determined to have a less than significant pr oject-level impact after mitigation in compar ison to the County’s efficiency -based employment VMT im pact thresholds.

Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a significant cumulative impact. -47-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

5.0 NON-CEQA ANALYSIS
Based on coordination with City of Downey staff, the follow ing eight (8) st udy intersections were identified for operational evaluation of the propos ed project and other cumulative developments in the study area:

1. Woodruff Avenue & Firestone Boulevard (Signalized)

2. Woodruff Avenue & Hall Road (Two Way Stop Control)

3. Woodruff Avenue & Stewart & Gray Road (Signalized)

4. Woodruff Avenue & Washburn Road (Signalized)

5. Woodruff Avenue & Imperial Highway (Signalized)

6. Newville Avenue-Stewart & Gray Road & Firestone Boulevard (Signalized)

7. I-605 Freeway Southbound Ramps & Firestone Boulevard (Signalized)

8. I-605 Freeway Northbound Ramps-Hoxie Avenue & Firestone Boulevard (Signalized)

5.1 Analysis Methodology
In order to estimate the proposed project’s effect on intersection operations, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic volumes on a pe ak hour and daily basis. The second step o f t he forecastin g process is trip distribution, whic h identifies the or igins and des tinations of in bound and outbound project tra ffic volumes. Th e se origins and de stinations are typically bas ed on de mographics and existing/anticipated tr avel patterns i n t he study area. The t hird step is traffic ass ignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and int ersections. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by gene ral percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to i ndividual road way l inks and intersecti on turning movem ents t hroughout the study area. The proposed project’s forecast trip generation, distribution, and assignment is presented in Section 2.6 herein. With the forec asting pro cess complete and project tr affic assignme nts developed, the effect of the proposed project is isolated by c omparing operational conditions at the selected study intersections using existing and ex pected future traffic volumes without and w ith forecast project traffic.

The City of Dow ney signalized study intersections were evaluated using the I ntersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of analysis which determines Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) ratios on a critical lane basis. Th e overall inter section v/c ratio is subsequentl y as signed a Level of Se rvice (LOS) value to describe intersection operations. Level of Service varies from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed co ndition). A de scription of the ICU method and corresponding Levels of Service is provided in Appendix C.

T
he I-605 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard and I-605 Freeway Northbound Ramps- Hoxie Avenue/Firestone Boulevard intersections (i.e., both located outside the City of Downey boundaries and under Caltrans jurisdiction) a s well as the City of Downey unsi gnalized/two-way stop-control (TWSC) Woodruff Aven ue/Hall Road study i ntersection w ere evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual ( HCM) met hod of a nalysis. The HCM method calculates the co ntrol -48-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
delay for e ach of the subject traffic movements at a st udy intersection and determines the level of service for each constrained movement. The control delay for any particular movement is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The overall control delay is measured in seconds per vehicle, and includes delay due to deceleration to a stop at the b ack of the queue from free-flow speed, move-up time wit hin the queue, stopped delay at the f ront of t he queue, and delay due to acceleration back to free-flow speed. The Level of Service (LOS) for the intersection is then calculated based on the overall control delay.

Caltrans released the Transportation Impact Study Guide 9 (TISG) in May 2020 which replaced the 2002 Guide for t he Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Per the TISG, Caltrans has transitioned away from requesting LOS or other vehicle operations analyses of land use pr ojects. Thus, the following operational assessment pertaining to Caltrans intersections is provide d for informational purposes only. In addition, it should be noted that level of service i s not defined for two-way stop- control intersections because major -street movements with n o delays typically result in a w eighted average delay that is extremely low. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis the delay asso ciated with the most const rained approach at th e intersection w as u tilize d t o determine the overa ll intersection level of service for the two-way stop-control intersection. The six qualitative categories of level of service and detailed description of the H CM signal ized and unsignalized inte rsection methods and corresponding LOS are provided in Appendix C.

5.2 Criteria for Non-CEQA Analysis
The relat ive effect of the added pro ject tr affic vol umes to be generat ed by th e p roposed proje ct during the weekday AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of existing and future operating conditions at th e study i ntersections, without and with the propose d projec t. The previously discussed capacity analysis procedur es were utilized t o evaluate the future v/c or delay relationships and service level characteristics at each study intersection.

The effect of project-generated traffic at each City of Downey stu dy intersection was compared to the Cit y of Downey’s intersection LOS standards as pr esented bel ow. The Downey Vi sion 2025 Circulation Element of the General Plan has established vehicle Level of Service (LOS) standards which local infrastructure will strive to maintain. The Circulation Element defines acceptable level of service as LOS D or better, along with the following applicable policy and program:
 Poli cy 2.1.1. Maintain a street system that provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
• Program 2.1.1.1. Maintain intersections and street segments at acceptable service levels and not worsen those intersections and street segments currently operating at unacceptable levels.

9 “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide”, Caltrans, May 20, 2020. -49-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
For purposes of this analysis, an intersection would be found inconsistent with the City’s Circulation Element if proje ct traffic causes the intersection to degrade from an acc eptable LOS to a n unacceptable LOS (i.e., LOS E or LOS F). For an intersection already operating at u nacceptable LOS, any increase in the intersection’s Volume-to-Capacity ratio would be found inconsistent with the City ’s Circulation Element. The foll owing section pres ents th e operational (i.e., Level of Service) analysis prepared for the proposed project pursuant to this requirement.

The operational analysis was prepared utilizing the following data previously presented herein:
• Project Peak Hour Traf fic G eneration: Refer to S ection 2.6.1 herein for t he project t raffic generation forecasts.
• Project Trip Distribution and Assignment: Refer to Section 2.6.2 herein. • Existing Roadway Network: Refer to Section 3.3 herein. • Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Count Data: Refer to Section 3.4 herein. • Related Projects: Refer to Section 3.5.1 herein.

5.3 Analysis Scenarios
Level of Service calculations have been prepared for t he following scenarios for the s tudy intersections:
[a] Existing conditions.
[b] Existing wi th project conditions.
[c] Condi tion [a] plus one per cent ( 1.0%) per year annual ambient traffic growth through year 20 24 and with c ompletion a nd occupancy o f t he r elated projects (i. e., future without project conditions).
[d] Condition [c ] with completion and occupancy of the proposed project. [e] Condit ion [ d] w ith implementatio n of intersection i mprovement measures, if necessary.

The weekday AM and PM peak hour LOS analysis prepared for the st udy intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies is summarized in Table 5-1. The ICU and HCM data worksheets for the analyzed intersections are provided in Appendix C.

5.4 Existing Conditions

5.4.1 Existing Conditions
As indicat ed in column [ 1] of Table 5-1, seven of t he eight study i ntersections ar e p resently operating at LOS D or bette r dur ing the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditi ons. The -50-
Table 5-1

SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS, DELAYS

AND LEVELS OF SERVICE

WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS

[1] [2] [3] [4]

YEAR 2022 YEAR 2024 YEAR 2024
YEAR 2022 EXISTING W/ CHANGE FUTURE FUTURE W/ CHANGE
EXISTING PROJECT V/C or PRE-PROJECT PROJECT V/C or
TRAFFIC PEAK V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY V/C or LOS V/C or LOS DELAY NO. INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR DELAY [a] Delay [a] [(2)-(1)] DELAY [a] DELAY [a] [(4)-(3)] 1 Woodruff Avenue/ Signalized AM 0.586 A 0.579 A -0.007 0.608 B 0.602 B -0.006 Firestone Boulevard PM 0.650 B 0.675 B 0.025 0.672 B 0.697 B 0.025 2 Woodruff Avenue/ Two-Way AM 18.9 C 19.9 C 1.0 20.0 C 21.1 C 1.1 Hall Road [c] Stop PM 15.8 C 15.4 C -0.4 16.4 C 16.0 C -0.4 3 Woodruff Avenue/ Signalized AM 0.618 B 0.614 B -0.004 0.649 B 0.646 B -0.003 Stewart and Gray Road PM 0.563 A 0.610 B 0.047 0.585 A 0.632 B 0.047 4 Woodruff Avenue/ Signalized AM 0.488 A 0.490 A 0.002 0.505 A 0.507 A 0.002 Washburn Road PM 0.469 A 0.472 A 0.003 0.484 A 0.487 A 0.003 5 Woodruff Avenue/ Signalized AM 0.733 C 0.737 C 0.004 0.756 C 0.761 C 0.005 Imperial Highway PM 0.834 D 0.838 D 0.004 0.854 D 0.858 D 0.004 6 Newville Avenue-Stewart and Gray Road/ Signalized AM 0.593 A 0.596 A 0.003 0.619 B 0.621 B 0.002 Firestone Boulevard PM 0.676 B 0.664 B -0.012 0.702 C 0.691 B -0.011 7 I-605 Freeway SB Ramps/ Signalized AM 35.7 D 30.8 C -4.9 38.0 D 32.6 C -5.4 Firestone Boulevard [b] PM 23.4 C 28.1 C 4.7 25.4 C 30.6 C 5.2 8 I-605 Freeway NB Ramps-Hoxie Avenue/ Signalized AM 134.7 F 116.9 F -17.8 132.6 F 112.4 F -20.2 Firestone Boulevard [b] PM 64.8 E 73.2 E 8.4 66.1 E 74.1 E 8.0 [a] Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for the City of Downey signalized intersections and the delay value for unsignalized intersections. [b] Caltrans signalized Intersection Levels of Service were based on the following criteria: Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Levels of Service were based on the following criteria:

C
ontrol
Delay
(s/veh) LOS Control Delay (s/veh) LOS
<= 10 A <= 10 A
> 10-20 B > 10-15 B
> 20-35 C > 15-25 C
> 35-55 D > 25-35 D
> 55-80 E > 35-50 E
> 80 F > 50 F
[c] Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection. Reported values represent the delays (in seconds) associated with the most constrained approach of the intersection.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-51-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
following study inte rsection is operating a t LOS E or LOS F durin g the peak hours shown under existing conditions:
• Int. 8: I-605 NB Ramps-Hoxie Ave & Firestone Bl
A M Peak Hour: Delay > 80.0 seconds, LOS F
PM Peak Hour: 64.8 seconds, LOS E

The existing traffic volumes at the study i ntersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 3-5, and 3-6, respectively.

5.4.2 Existing With Project Conditions
As shown in column [2] of Table 5-1, seven of the eight study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS D or b etter during the AM and PM peak hours under the existing with project conditions. The following study intersection is expected to continue opera ting at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours shown under the existing with project conditions:
• Int. 8: I-605 NB Ramps-Hoxie Ave & Firestone Bl
A M
Peak Hour: Delay > 80.0 seconds, LOS F
PM Peak Hour: 73.2 seconds, LOS E

The existing with project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively.

5.5 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Conditions

5.5.1 Future Year 2024 Cumulative Without Project Conditions The future year 2024 c umulative baseline conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic generated by the comple tion and oc cupancy of the related projects, as well as the growth in tra ffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existing developments and other factors (i.e., ambient growth). The v/c ratios and delay values at the study i ntersections are incrementally increased with the addition of ambie nt traffic and tra ffic generated by the related projects l isted in Table 3–4. As pr esented i n column [ 3] of Table 5-1, seven of the eight study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM p eak hours under the future year 2024 cumulative w ithout proje ct conditions. The f ollowing study intersection is expected to continue operating at LOS E or LOS F during the peak hours shown under the future year 2024 cumulative without project conditions:
• Int. 8: I-605 NB Ramps-Hoxie Ave & Firestone Bl
A M Peak Hour: Delay > 80.0 seconds, LOS F
P M Peak Hour: 66.1 seconds, LOS E

The future year 2024 cumulative without project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 5-3, and 5-4, respectively. -52-
-53-
-54-
-55-
-56-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

5.5.2 Future Year 2024 Cumulative With Project Conditions As shown in column [4] of Table 5-1, seven of the eight study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LO S D or better duri ng the AM and PM pe ak hours under the future year 2024 cumulative wit h project condi tions. The f ollowing study intersection is expected t o continue operating at L OS E or LOS F during the peak ho urs shown under the future year 2024 cumulative with project conditions:
• Int. 8: I-605 NB Ramps-Hoxie Ave & Firestone Bl
A M Peak Hour: Delay > 80.0 seconds, LOS F
PM Peak Hour: 74.1 seconds, LOS E

Application of the City’s criteria to t he “Future Year 2024 Cumulative With Pro ject” scenario indicates that the project-related effects at the City of Downey study intersections are not expected to exceed t he City’s thre shold c riteria. Incremental v/c and delay increases, but not exceeding the City’s cri teria, a re noted at the study inter sections. As no ne of the City of Downey study intersections w ould be found incons istent with the City ’s Circula tion Element , no intersection improvement measures are required or recommended for the study intersections . T he future year 2024 cumulative with project traffic volumes at the st udy intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 5-5, and 5-6, respectively.

-57-
-58-
-59-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

6.0 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Based on coordination with City of Downe y staff, the follow ing three (3) ro adway segments wer e selected for analysis as part of the transportation analysis:

1. Woodruff Avenue, between Hall Road and Stewart & Gray Road

2. Hall Road, west of Woodruff Avenue

3. Stewart & Gray Road, west of Woodruff Avenue
The street segment analysis criteria was previously shown in S ection 5.2 her ein. The foll owing section presents the roadway segment analysis prepared for the proposed project.

6.1 Roadway Segment Analysis
As described in Subsection 3.4, average daily traffic data collected in October 2021 was utilized for the roadway segment a nalysis. The forecast traffic conditions a t the analyzed street segmen ts for existing, existing with project, future pr e-project, an d future w ith project sce narios for weekday conditions are summarized in Table 6-1. As sh own in Colum n [1] of Table 6-1, all three study roadway segments are presently operating under acceptable service levels (i.e., LOS D or better). As shown in Column [3] of Table 6-1, the proposed project is forecast to res ult in a net increase of 33 PCE-adjusted daily vehicle trips on Woodruff Ave nue, 70 daily trips on Hall Road , a nd 70 daily trips on Stewart & Gray Road.

As shown in Column [5] of Table 6-1, for purposes of estimating future pre-project traffic volumes, a one percent (1.00 %) annual ambient growth r ate through the year 2024 was added to the existing ADT volume in order to es timate the future pre -project traffic volumes to account f or increases in general ambient traffic. Based on the relatively sma ll net increases in proj ect daily traffic, all three study roadway segments are expected to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under the future year 2024 cumulative with project conditions. Therefore, no roadway improvement measures are required or recommended for the study roadway segments.

-60-
[1] Future 2024 Conditions
Existing [3] [4] [5] [6]
ADT

Project Existing + Future Fut + Proj
Volume In Out Daily Trips Proj. Vol ADT Vol ADT Vol
1 Woodruff Avenue 13,959 20% 20% 33 13,992 14,378 14,411 btwn Hall Rd and Stewart and Gray Rd
2 Hall Road 2,292 42% 42% 70 2,362 2,361 2,431
west of Woodruff Avenue
3 Stewart and Gray Road 18,810 42% 42% 70 18,880 19,375 19,445 west of Woodruff Avenue
[1] Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume represents two-way average daily traffic. Counts were conducted in October 2021 by Counts Unlimited. [2] Distribution of inbound and outbound proposed project daily traffic at the analyzed street segment. [3] Daily project volume includes inbound and outbound trips based on the proposed project net new daily total volume of 167 weekday daily trip ends. [4] Derived by combining the existing traffic volumes and the proposed net new project volumes (i.e., total of columns [1] and [3]). [5] An ambient growth rate of 1.00% per year was assumed to derive the year 2024 traffic volumes based on the 2010 CMP for Los Angeles County document. [6] Derived by combining the proposed net new project volumes with the future traffic volumes (i.e., column [3]+column [5]).

Table 6-1
Segment

ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Proposed Project Dist %
[2]
Proposed Project
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-61-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

7.0 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT
Based on coordin ation with City of Downe y staff, the neighborhood on Hall Road west of the project site was identified for evaluation of potential impacts due to the proposed project .

Specifically, the residential neighborhood on Hall Road, west of Coldbrook Avenue, was evaluated.

While existing traffic count data was not specifically collected for this neighborhood roadway segment, the nearby Hal l R oad segment west of Woodruff Avenue was evaluat ed as part of the project’s roadway segment analysis, as described in Subsection 6.1. Based on a review of the traffic volume data, i t was determined that the existing traffic volumes on Hall Road, west of Coldbrook Avenue, would be similar an d likely be less than the e xisting traffic volumes conducted at the analyzed roadway segment of Hall Road, west of Woodruff Avenue.

As discussed in Subsection 2.6.2 and shown in Figure 2-3, approximately eight percent (8%) of the project’s passenger vehicle traffic is forecast to utilize Ha ll Road to and from the west (i.e., west of Coldbrook Avenue). Furthe rmore, based on the recommended restriction of no outbound left-turn movements for trucks at the Hall Road project driveways, no project-related truck traffic is expected to be added on Hall Road to and from the west. As part of the entitlement, a condition of approval will be applied to further prohibit truck traffic through Hall Road west of the project site. Thus, the proposed project is forecast to result in a net increase of 13 PCE-adjusted daily vehicle trips on Hall Road west of Coldbrook Avenue based on the estimated 8% of the 167 net new daily PCE vehicle trips forecast to be generated by the project as previously shown in Table 2-1. Based on the character of Hall Road adjacent to t he project site and the existing network connectivity i n the vicinity, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial traffic in the vicinity of the project site which would adversely affect the character and function of nearby roadways. Therefore, no additional measures to prevent potential tra ffic impacts in the nearby neighborhoods are required or recommended.

-62-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

8.0 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has formally adopted VMT as the metric for evaluating the transportation i mpacts of local development projects on the State Highway System.

Caltrans’ Transportation Im pact Study Guide 10 (TISG) re ferences the D ecember 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportat ion Impacts in CE QA11 prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as the basis for its guidance on VMT assessment. For the purpose of this transportation asse ssment, i t is underst ood tha t Los A ngeles Co unty’s adopted VMT methodology and screening criteria is substantially consistent with the recommendations provided in the Technical Advisory and thus satisfy Caltrans’ VMT analysis requirements as well.

Caltrans’ TISG st ates, “Addit ional f uture g uidance w ill in clude the basis f or req uesting transportation impact anal ysis that i s not based on VMT. Thi s guidance wil l include a simpl ified safety analysis approach that reduces risks to all road users and that focuses on multi-modal conflict analysis a s well as a ccess management i ssues.” Whi le the final guidance i s stil l b eing de veloped, Caltrans has re leased the “Interim Land De velopment and I ntergovernmental R eview (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance”12. The proposed project does not take direct access to/from a State facility; however, it is situated approximately one mile from the I-605 Freeway corridor, and is expected to generate net new project trips at nearby ramp intersections. Therefore, the interim safety guidance was reviewed a nd analyses r elevant to the proposed land use developm ent p roject w ere identified for inclusion in the transportation assessment.

8.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Caltrans’ TISG references the December 2018 Technical Advisory prepared by OPR as the basis for its guidance on VMT assessment. For the purpose of this transportation assessment, it is understood that Los Angeles County’s adopted V MT analysis methodology is substantially consistent with the recommendations pr ovided in the Technical Advis ory and thus satisfy Ca ltrans’ VMT an alysis requirements as well. Therefore, no separate VMT analysis has been prepared for C altrans’ review of the proposed project.

8.2 Off-Ramp Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The “ Interim LD -IGR S afety Review Practitioners Guidance ” provides di rection on a simplified safety an alysis ap proach th at reduces the risk to all road us ers and tha t focuses on multi -modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues. District traffic s afety staff are encouraged to consider the propos ed project’s potent ial in fluence on s afety on state roadwa ys, incl uding the following factors:
• Increased presence of pedestrians and bicyclists

10 “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide”, Caltrans, May 20, 2020. 11 “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA”, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
12 “Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance”, Caltrans, December 18, 2020.
-63-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
• Degradation of the walking and bicycling environment and experience • New pedestrian and bicyclist connection desires
• Multimodal conflict points, especially at intersections and project access locations • Change in traffic mix such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design (sidewalks, bike and multi-user paths, multimodal roadways, etc.)
• Increased vehicular speeds
• Transition between free flow and metered flow
• Increased traffic volumes
• Queuing a t off- ramps resulting i n slow or stopped t raffic on the mainline or speed differentials between adjacent lanes
• Queuing exceeding turn pocket length that impedes through-traffic The proposed Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse project does not take direct access from a State facility; therefore, the project has not been review ed for fa ctors pertaining to site access o r local roadways. However, the proposed project is expected to generate net new project trips at the I- 605 Freeway ramp interchange at Firestone Boulevard (i.e., Int. No. 7 – I-605 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard and I nt. No. 8 – I-605 Freeway Northbound Ra mps-Hoxie Avenue/Firestone Boul evard). Therefo re, an an alysis of the project ’s effect o n off -ramp queuing was pr epared in or der t o determine if the p roject would c ause, or co ntribute towards, slowing or stopped traffic on mai nline t ravel lanes resul ting in uns afe speed diffe rentials between adjacent lanes.

The off-ramp que ueing w as analyzed us ing the Highwa y Capacity Manual ( HCM) ope rational methodology for signalized intersections. The off-ramp queuing calculations were prepared using the Synchro 11 software package which implements t he HCM opera tional methodology. A Synchro network wa s created b ased on exi sting conditions field reviews at the abov e noted ramp intersections. In addition, specifics such as t raffic volum e dat a, lane configurations , a vailable vehicle storage lengths, crosswalk locations, posted speed limits, traffic signal timing and phasing, etc., were coded to complete the network. The corresponding weekday AM and PM peak hour HCM worksheets for purposes of determining the 95th percentile vehicle queues are contained in Appendix C.

The queuing analysis w as prepared for the existing, existing with pr oject, and future cumulative without a nd with proje ct traffic con ditions. Th e corresponding freeway off- ramp intersection approaches were reviewed in terms of expected maximum vehicle queues (i .e., 95 th per centile queues) which r epresent the maximum back of vehicle queues wit h 95th percentile traffic volumes.

The corresponding maximum vehicle queue lengths were then compared to the total ramp storage lengths (i.e., the available storage length as measured from the applicable off-ramp lane striping to the respective off-ramp approach limit lines /merge points). The total queuing for the off-ramp was -64-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
determined based on the sum of the maximum vehicle queues for each off-ramp lane. The total ramp storage length was determined based on the sum of the striped stor age for all lanes provided at the off-ramp location.

As pr esented in Table 8-1, adequate storage area is provided at t he respective I-605 Freeway northbound and southbound off- ramps to accommodate th e forecast 95 th pe rcentile queues under existing and futur e cu mulative condit ions, both wit hout a nd with project -generated traf fic.

Therefore, the proposed project is expected to neither cause nor contribute towards vehicle queuing which ext ends back i nto t he I-605 Freeway northbound a nd southbound mainlin e travel lanes .

Therefore, the pro posed pr oject is not a nticipated to negatively inf luence s afety on t he State Highway System.

-65-
Table 8-1
SUMMARY OF OFF-RAMP VEHICLE QUEUING [1]

EXISTING FUTURE FUTURE

EXISTING WITH PROJECT WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
AVAILABLE 95th 95th 95th 95th

OFF-RAMP PERCENTILE EXCEEDS PERCENTILE EXCEEDS PERCENTILE EXCEEDS PERCENTILE EXCEEDS PEAK STORAGE [2] QUEUE [3] STORAGE? QUEUE [3] STORAGE? QUEUE [3] STORAGE? QUEUE [3] STORAGE? NO. INTERSECTION HOUR (FEET) (FEET) (YES/NO) (FEET) (YES/NO) (FEET) (YES/NO) (FEET) (YES/NO) 7 I-605 Fwy SB Ramps/ AM 1,310 838 No 628 No 910 No 695 No Firestone Boulevard PM 1,310 798 No 973 No 873 No 1,068 No 8 I-605 Fwy NB Ramps-Hoxie Avenue/ AM 4,410 2,520 No 2,253 No 2,565 No 2,260 No Firestone Boulevard PM 4,410 1,123 No 1,355 No 1,148 No 1,380 No [1] Queuing analysis based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition operational analysis methodologies. [2] Available storage represents the sum of storage space provided by all off-ramp lanes, as measured via Google Earth, 2022. [3] The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes. An average vehicle length of 25 feet (including vehicle separation) was assumed for analysis purposes. The reported queue represents the sum of queues for all off-ramp lanes.

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1
Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project
-66-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc

9.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• Project Description – The proposed project site is located at 9300, 9350, and 9400 Hall Road and 9301, 9333, and 9399 Stewart & Gray Road in the City of Do wney, California. The proposed project consists of the demo lition of t he existing buildings (totaling approxim ately 4 33,000 square feet) and the const ruction of an industrial concrete tilt building for warehouse/logistics uses totaling 535,685 square feet of building floor area . The new speculative industrial building is intended to be use d for logistics and distribution purposes , and spec ifically as a fulfillment center and for col d storage. The facili ty wil l include up to 20,000 square feet of offi ce and 25,000 square feet of mezzanine areas. The proj ect build-out and occupancy year is anticipated by the year 2024.
• Project Site Access – Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by five driveways, including three driveways along Hall Road and two driveways along Stewart & Gray Road. The Hall Road project driveways will accommodate full access (i.e., left and right-turning inbound and outbound movement s) f or passe nger vehicles . Ho wever, outbound left-turn movements for trucks will not be permitted at the project’s Hall Road driveways. The Stewart & Gray Road project driveway s will accommoda te fu ll access for both passenger vehicles and trucks. Develo pment of the proposed project would not conflict with the exis ting pedestrian system or the existing/proposed bicycle system.
• Project Parking – The proposed project is planned to provide a t otal of 544 automobile parking spaces and 255 trailer and/or contai ner parking space s. Application of the parking rati os provided in the City of Downey Municipal Code Section 9712 to the proposed project results in a parking requirement of 670 parking spaces. T hus, the proposed project parking supply would exceed the minimum Code parking requirement.
• Project T rip Generat ion – The proposed project is expected to generate a net decrease of 47 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips ( 73 fe wer inbound trips and 26 more outbound trips) duri ng the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is e xpected to generate a net increase of 1 89 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (187 more inbound trips and 2 more outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase of 167 PCE-adjusted vehicle trips (approximately 84 more inbound trips and 84 more outbound trips) during a typical weekday.
• CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis – Based on th e applicable VMT metric fo r the South County Baseline Area (i.e., VMT per employee), the propos ed project is e xpected to resu lt in a significant VMT impact. With the recommended TDM strategies, including implementation of a marketing strategy to promot e commute trip reduction, a ridesharing program, and provision of end-of-trip bicycle f acilities such as secure bike parking, showers, and personal lockers, the forecast significant project VMT impact is expected to be reduced to a less than significant level. -67-

LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project
O:\JOB_FILE\4450\Report\4450-Rpt4.doc
• Non-CEQA Analysis – In consultation with the City of Downey, eight (8) study intersections and three (3) roadway segments were selected for operational evaluation of the proposed project and other cumulative developments in the study area. In addition, the residential area located on Hall Road west of the project site was also evaluat ed for poten tial neighborhood traffic impacts.

Based on application of the City of Downey’s intersection a nd street seg ment LOS standards, none of the City of Downey study locations would be found inconsis tent with th e City’s Circulation Element under all analysis conditions. Further, the project is forecast to add only a nominal number of vehicle trips onto the residential portion of Hall Road west of the project site. • Caltrans Transportation Ass essment – It is understood that Los Angeles County’s adopted VMT methodology is consistent with the recommendations provided in the Technical Advisory prepared by OP R and thus satisfy Caltrans’ VMT analysis requirements as w ell. Therefore, no separate VMT analysis has been prepared for Caltrans’ review of the proposed project. Pursuant to the di rection provided in t he “Interim LD-IGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance”, an analysis of the project’s effect on o ff-ramp queuing a t Int. No. 7 – I-605 Freeway Southbound Ramps/Firestone Boulevard and I nt. N o. 8 – I-605 Freeway Northbound Ra mps-Hoxie Avenue/Firestone Bouleva rd determined th at the proposed project is not expect ed to cause or contribute t owards v ehicle q ueuing which extends back into the respective I -605 Freeway southbound and northbound mainline travel lanes.

-68-
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-21-4450-1 Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE COUNT DATA
File Name : 01_DNY_Wood_Fire AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Firestone Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
El Pollo Loco
Southbound
Firestone Boulevard
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Firestone Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 1 1 38 338 0 376 67 0 18 85 0 143 42 185 647 07:15 AM 0 0 1 1 34 388 1 423 151 0 44 195 1 185 88 274 893 07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 41 434 0 475 143 0 51 194 1 213 85 299 969 07:45 AM 0 0 1 1 60 313 1 374 121 0 65 186 1 302 168 471 1032 Total 0 0 4 4 173 1473 2 1648 482 0 178 660 3 843 383 1229 3541 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 75 319 1 395 101 1 47 149 0 200 109 309 854 08:15 AM 0 0 1 1 35 454 2 491 119 0 34 153 1 222 59 282 927 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 44 326 0 370 79 0 34 113 2 157 37 196 679 08:45 AM 0 0 1 1 45 303 0 348 78 1 25 104 2 162 70 234 687 Total 0 0 3 3 199 1402 3 1604 377 2 140 519 5 741 275 1021 3147 Grand Total 0 0 7 7 372 2875 5 3252 859 2 318 1179 8 1584 658 2250 6688 Apprch % 0 0 100 11.4 88.4 0.2 72.9 0.2 27 0.4 70.4 29.2 Total % 0 0 0.1 0.1 5.6 43 0.1 48.6 12.8 0 4.8 17.6 0.1 23.7 9.8 33.6 El Pollo Loco
Southbound
Firestone Boulevard
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Firestone Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 41 434 0 475 143 0 51 194 1 213 85 299 969 07:45 AM 0 0 1 1 60 313 1 374 121 0 65 186 1 302 168 471 1032 08:00 AM 0 0 1 1 75 319 1 395 101 1 47 149 0 200 109 309 854 08:15 AM 0 0 1 1 35 454 2 491 119 0 34 153 1 222 59 282 927 Total Volume 0 0 4 4 211 1520 4 1735 484 1 197 682 3 937 421 1361 3782 % App. Total 0 0 100 12.2 87.6 0.2 71 0.1 28.9 0.2 68.8 30.9 PHF .000 .000 1.00 1.00 .703 .837 .500 .883 .846 .250 .758 .879 .750 .776 .626 .722 .916 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 01_DNY_Wood_Fire AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Firestone Boulevard
Weather: Clear
El Pollo Loco
Firestone Boulevard
Firestone Boulevard
Woodruff Avenue
Right
4 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
8 4 12
Right
4 Thru
1520
Left
211
OutTotal In
1134 1735 2869
Left
484
Thru
1 Right
197
Out TotalIn
632 682 1314
Left
3 Thru
937
Right
421
TotalOut In
2008 1361 3369
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM
+0 mins. 0 0 1 1 41 434 0 475 151 0 44 195 1 213 85 299 +15 mins. 0 0 1 1 60 313 1 374 143 0 51 194 1 302 168 471 +30 mins. 0 0 1 1 75 319 1 395 121 0 65 186 0 200 109 309 +45 mins. 0 0 1 1 35 454 2 491 101 1 47 149 1 222 59 282 Total Volume 0 0 4 4 211 1520 4 1735 516 1 207 724 3 937 421 1361 % App. Total 0 0 100 12.2 87.6 0.2 71.3 0.1 28.6 0.2 68.8 30.9 PHF .000 .000 1.000 1.000 .703 .837 .500 .883 .854 .250 .796 .928 .750 .776 .626 .722 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 01_DNY_Wood_Fire PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Firestone Boulevard
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
El Pollo Loco
Southbound
Firestone Boulevard
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Firestone Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 1 7 8 45 262 7 314 125 2 71 198 6 299 75 380 900 04:15 PM 0 0 12 12 48 291 3 342 88 3 60 151 8 329 81 418 923 04:30 PM 0 0 13 13 35 265 2 302 131 2 73 206 4 302 92 398 919 04:45 PM 0 0 9 9 45 284 10 339 118 3 65 186 10 294 87 391 925 Total 0 1 41 42 173 1102 22 1297 462 10 269 741 28 1224 335 1587 3667 05:00 PM 0 0 8 8 44 277 1 322 161 5 60 226 5 291 75 371 927 05:15 PM 0 0 15 15 42 332 9 383 100 2 65 167 2 330 89 421 986 05:30 PM 1 0 9 10 42 283 2 327 97 3 59 159 2 311 88 401 897 05:45 PM 0 0 7 7 58 296 6 360 93 6 57 156 8 267 95 370 893 Total 1 0 39 40 186 1188 18 1392 451 16 241 708 17 1199 347 1563 3703 Grand Total 1 1 80 82 359 2290 40 2689 913 26 510 1449 45 2423 682 3150 7370 Apprch % 1.2 1.2 97.6 13.4 85.2 1.5 63 1.8 35.2 1.4 76.9 21.7 Total % 0 0 1.1 1.1 4.9 31.1 0.5 36.5 12.4 0.4 6.9 19.7 0.6 32.9 9.3 42.7 El Pollo Loco
Southbound
Firestone Boulevard
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Firestone Boulevard
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 0 0 13 13 35 265 2 302 131 2 73 206 4 302 92 398 919 04:45 PM 0 0 9 9 45 284 10 339 118 3 65 186 10 294 87 391 925 05:00 PM 0 0 8 8 44 277 1 322 161 5 60 226 5 291 75 371 927 05:15 PM 0 0 15 15 42 332 9 383 100 2 65 167 2 330 89 421 986 Total Volume 0 0 45 45 166 1158 22 1346 510 12 263 785 21 1217 343 1581 3757 % App. Total 0 0 100 12.3 86 1.6 65 1.5 33.5 1.3 77 21.7 PHF .000 .000 .750 .750 .922 .872 .550 .879 .792 .600 .901 .868 .525 .922 .932 .939 .953 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 01_DNY_Wood_Fire PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Firestone Boulevard
Weather: Clear
El Pollo Loco
Firestone Boulevard
Firestone Boulevard
Woodruff Avenue
Right
45 Thru
0 Left
0 InOut Total
55 45 100
Right
22 Thru
1158
Left
166
OutTotal In
1480 1346 2826
Left
510
Thru
12 Right
263
Out TotalIn
509 785 1294
Left
21 Thru
1217
Right
343
TotalOut In
1713 1581 3294
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:30 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:00 PM
+0 mins. 0 0 13 13 44 277 1 322 131 2 73 206 6 299 75 380 +15 mins. 0 0 9 9 42 332 9 383 118 3 65 186 8 329 81 418 +30 mins. 0 0 8 8 42 283 2 327 161 5 60 226 4 302 92 398 +45 mins. 0 0 15 15 58 296 6 360 100 2 65 167 10 294 87 391 Total Volume 0 0 45 45 186 1188 18 1392 510 12 263 785 28 1224 335 1587 % App. Total 0 0 100 13.4 85.3 1.3 65 1.5 33.5 1.8 77.1 21.1 PHF .000 .000 .750 .750 .802 .895 .500 .909 .792 .600 .901 .868 .700 .930 .910 .949 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 02_DNY_Wood_Hall AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Hall Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Hall Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 67 9 76 6 72 78 7 1 8 162
07:15 AM 110 8 118 10 177 187 16 3 19 324
07:30 AM 149 3 152 8 189 197 19 9 28 377
07:45 AM 236 9 245 3 164 167 16 6 22 434
Total 562 29 591 27 602 629 58 19 77 1297
08:00 AM 172 11 183 7 141 148 10 5 15 346
08:15 AM 103 6 109 8 147 155 9 10 19 283
08:30 AM 74 11 85 12 103 115 6 11 17 217
08:45 AM 95 11 106 12 102 114 6 9 15 235
Total 444 39 483 39 493 532 31 35 66 1081
Grand Total 1006 68 1074 66 1095 1161 89 54 143 2378
Apprch % 93.7 6.3 5.7 94.3 62.2 37.8
Total % 42.3 2.9 45.2 2.8 46 48.8 3.7 2.3 6
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Hall Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 110 8 118 10 177 187 16 3 19 324
07:30 AM 149 3 152 8 189 197 19 9 28 377
07:45 AM 236 9 245 3 164 167 16 6 22 434
08:00 AM 172 11 183 7 141 148 10 5 15 346
Total Volume 667 31 698 28 671 699 61 23 84 1481
% App. Total 95.6 4.4 4 96 72.6 27.4
PHF .707 .705 .712 .700 .888 .887 .803 .639 .750 .853
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 02_DNY_Wood_Hall AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Hall Road
Weather: Clear
Woodruff Avenue
Hall Road
Woodruff Avenue
Right
31 Thru
667
InOut Total
732 698 1430
Left
28 Thru
671
Out TotalIn
690 699 1389
Left
61 Right
23 TotalOut In
59 84 143
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 110 8 118 10 177 187 16 3 19
+15 mins. 149 3 152 8 189 197 19 9 28
+30 mins. 236 9 245 3 164 167 16 6 22
+45 mins. 172 11 183 7 141 148 10 5 15
Total Volume 667 31 698 28 671 699 61 23 84
% App. Total 95.6 4.4 4 96 72.6 27.4
PHF .707 .705 .712 .700 .888 .887 .803 .639 .750
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 02_DNY_Wood_Hall PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Hall Road
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Hall Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 114 10 124 8 177 185 11 7 18 327
04:15 PM 112 11 123 4 145 149 10 8 18 290
04:30 PM 123 8 131 8 211 219 18 20 38 388
04:45 PM 134 7 141 2 169 171 16 10 26 338
Total 483 36 519 22 702 724 55 45 100 1343
05:00 PM 120 2 122 10 212 222 13 12 25 369
05:15 PM 124 10 134 4 165 169 15 7 22 325
05:30 PM 117 12 129 5 141 146 11 3 14 289
05:45 PM 127 18 145 5 151 156 12 8 20 321
Total 488 42 530 24 669 693 51 30 81 1304
Grand Total 971 78 1049 46 1371 1417 106 75 181 2647
Apprch % 92.6 7.4 3.2 96.8 58.6 41.4
Total % 36.7 2.9 39.6 1.7 51.8 53.5 4 2.8 6.8
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Hall Road
Eastbound
Start Time Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 123 8 131 8 211 219 18 20 38 388
04:45 PM 134 7 141 2 169 171 16 10 26 338
05:00 PM 120 2 122 10 212 222 13 12 25 369
05:15 PM 124 10 134 4 165 169 15 7 22 325
Total Volume 501 27 528 24 757 781 62 49 111 1420
% App. Total 94.9 5.1 3.1 96.9 55.9 44.1
PHF .935 .675 .936 .600 .893 .880 .861 .613 .730 .915
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 02_DNY_Wood_Hall PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Hall Road
Weather: Clear
Woodruff Avenue
Hall Road
Woodruff Avenue
Right
27 Thru
501
InOut Total
819 528 1347
Left
24 Thru
757
Out TotalIn
550 781 1331
Left
62 Right
49 TotalOut In
51 111 162
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 120 2 122 8 211 219 18 20 38
+15 mins. 124 10 134 2 169 171 16 10 26
+30 mins. 117 12 129 10 212 222 13 12 25
+45 mins. 127 18 145 4 165 169 15 7 22
Total Volume 488 42 530 24 757 781 62 49 111
% App. Total 92.1 7.9 3.1 96.9 55.9 44.1
PHF .961 .583 .914 .600 .893 .880 .861 .613 .730
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268

DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC2606
Thu, Jul 9, 20 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 2
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 9 35 8 1 24 7 5 56 9 9 33 7 203 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 10 31 10 1 31 12 10 61 11 12 32 9 230 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 15 36 14 4 41 11 11 85 22 14 39 5 297 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 13 44 13 2 63 20 8 60 24 17 52 12 328 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 16 53 15 2 39 16 8 59 16 8 41 8 281 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 16 43 12 2 38 15 3 62 12 12 39 5 259 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 10 49 24 0 35 20 17 60 22 14 44 9 304 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 15 46 18 5 38 10 11 77 20 7 42 9 298 0 1 0 0 1 VOLUMES 104 337 114 17 309 111 73 520 136 93 322 64 2,200 0 1 0 0 1 APPROACH % 19% 61% 21% 4% 71% 25% 10% 71% 19% 19% 67% 13% APP/DEPART 555 / 475 437 / 538 729 / 650 479 / 537 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 55 189 64 6 175 71 36 241 74 51 176 34 1,172 APPROACH % 18% 61% 21% 2% 69% 28% 10% 69% 21% 20% 67% 13% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.917 0.741 0.886 0.806 0.893
APP/DEPART 308 / 259 252 / 300 351 / 311 261 / 302 0 4:00 PM 26 99 23 3 76 33 32 132 20 24 76 14 558 2 0 0 0 2 4:15 PM 28 79 24 3 76 35 32 101 30 13 77 13 511 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 34 99 30 3 77 54 32 129 23 16 74 9 580 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 23 93 27 4 81 37 35 87 29 17 84 13 530 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 22 101 22 5 70 47 39 130 28 15 93 8 580 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 24 81 17 3 88 25 32 109 22 13 99 17 530 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 28 65 18 6 89 41 36 91 22 7 68 11 482 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 21 75 17 4 74 33 36 106 23 13 73 8 483 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 206 692 178 31 631 305 274 885 197 118 644 93 4,254 2 0 0 0 2 APPROACH % 19% 64% 17% 3% 65% 32% 20% 65% 15% 14% 75% 11% APP/DEPART 1,076 / 1,059 967 / 948 1,356 / 1,094 855 / 1,153 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 103 374 96 15 316 163 138 455 102 61 350 47 2,220 APPROACH % 18% 65% 17% 3% 64% 33% 20% 65% 15% 13% 76% 10% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.879 0.922 0.882 0.888 0.957
APP/DEPART 573 / 559 494 / 479 695 / 566 458 / 616 0 Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Stewart & Gray WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Stewart & Gray

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 7:15 AM 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 7:30 AM 2 1 2 5 10 1 0 2 4 7 1 1 0 1 3 7:45 AM 1 0 1 4 6 1 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 1 1 8:00 AM 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 1 1 8:15 AM 3 0 3 1 7 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 1 2 8:30 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7 5 8 19 39 5 0 6 15 26 2 5 2 4 13 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4:15 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 4:30 PM 2 0 2 1 5 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 2 4:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 5:00 PM 2 2 0 3 7 1 0 0 3 4 1 2 0 0 3 5:15 PM 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 5:30 PM 0 1 2 1 4 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 8 4 5 11 28 3 0 2 9 14 5 4 3 2 14

BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AMPMAM
7:45 AM
PM
4:30 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Woodruff
Stewart & Gray

U-TURNS
Woodruff Woodruff Stewart & Gray Stewart & Gray
Add U-Turns to Left Turns

DATE: LOCATION: PROJECT #: SC2606
Thu, Jul 9, 20 NORTH & SOUTH: LOCATION #: 1
EAST & WEST: CONTROL: SIGNAL
NOTES: AM ▲
PM N
MD ◄ W E ►

OTHER S
OTHER ▼

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL NB SB EB WB TTL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 5 56 19 5 27 1 6 5 14 8 4 3 153 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 4 55 21 6 36 6 10 2 13 12 1 1 167 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 8 62 17 6 43 9 14 3 12 9 0 4 187 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 11 79 31 6 56 12 8 8 10 14 2 5 242 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 4 74 22 4 56 8 8 8 13 11 0 7 215 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 12 52 24 4 45 8 10 7 11 11 2 10 196 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 5 71 15 4 60 9 7 3 5 10 1 2 192 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 5 67 11 6 46 2 9 2 8 11 2 3 172 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 54 516 160 41 369 55 72 38 86 86 12 35 1,524 0 0 0 0 0 APPROACH % 7% 71% 22% 9% 79% 12% 37% 19% 44% 65% 9% 26% APP/DEPART 730 / 623 465 / 541 196 / 239 133 / 121 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 32 276 92 18 217 37 33 26 39 46 5 24 845 APPROACH % 8% 69% 23% 7% 80% 14% 34% 27% 40% 61% 7% 32% PEAK HR FACTOR 0.826 0.919 0.845 0.815 0.873
APP/DEPART 400 / 333 272 / 302 98 / 136 75 / 74 0 4:00 PM 6 120 15 4 107 18 12 2 14 27 4 7 336 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 14 113 20 8 101 15 10 2 10 15 5 10 323 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 5 113 13 4 129 11 15 1 20 23 3 7 344 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 11 124 7 3 115 11 12 3 11 9 1 8 315 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 9 120 9 6 114 14 9 2 19 15 3 17 337 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM 12 110 7 7 121 10 7 2 15 17 4 4 316 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 18 82 11 4 115 11 13 2 13 10 4 9 292 1 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 13 88 11 4 105 6 7 0 14 19 2 4 273 0 0 0 0 0 VOLUMES 88 870 93 40 907 96 85 14 116 135 26 66 2,536 1 0 0 0 1 APPROACH % 8% 83% 9% 4% 87% 9% 40% 7% 54% 59% 11% 29%
APP/DEPART 1,051 / 1,021 1,043 / 1,159 215 / 147 227 / 209 0

BEGIN PEAK HR
VOLUMES 39 470 49 21 459 51 46 8 60 62 12 42 1,319 APPROACH % 7% 84% 9% 4% 86% 10% 40% 7% 53% 53% 10% 36%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.949 0.922 0.792 0.829 0.959
APP/DEPART 558 / 558 531 / 581 114 / 78 116 / 102 0 Woodruff

NORTH SIDE
Washburn WEST SIDE EAST SIDE Washburn

SOUTH SIDE
Woodruff

N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL NS SS ES WS TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 7:15 AM 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8:15 AM 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 8:30 AM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 3 0 5 12 20 1 0 3 10 14 2 0 2 2 6 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4:30 PM 1 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 1 1 2 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 4 1 5 5 15 1 1 3 4 9 3 0 2 1 6

BICYCLE CROSSINGS
AMPMAM
7:45 AM
PM
4:15 PM

ALL PED AND BIKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] Downey
Woodruff
Washburn

U-TURNS
Woodruff Woodruff Washburn Washburn
Add U-Turns to Left Turns
File Name : 03_DNY_Wood_Imperial AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Imperial Highway
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Imperial Highway
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Imperial Highway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 12 34 14 60 24 178 47 249 20 85 32 137 29 146 5 180 626 07:15 AM 31 58 25 114 48 207 59 314 39 161 55 255 42 149 18 209 892 07:30 AM 27 82 35 144 35 226 53 314 52 143 62 257 49 177 25 251 966 07:45 AM 36 135 42 213 39 251 81 371 65 140 66 271 54 136 27 217 1072 Total 106 309 116 531 146 862 240 1248 176 529 215 920 174 608 75 857 3556 08:00 AM 34 114 52 200 59 208 75 342 42 110 56 208 50 165 37 252 1002 08:15 AM 39 63 37 139 65 231 62 358 61 150 73 284 37 142 16 195 976 08:30 AM 25 51 25 101 44 191 52 287 39 105 53 197 44 165 16 225 810 08:45 AM 25 66 27 118 36 185 48 269 42 89 44 175 23 117 25 165 727 Total 123 294 141 558 204 815 237 1256 184 454 226 864 154 589 94 837 3515 Grand Total 229 603 257 1089 350 1677 477 2504 360 983 441 1784 328 1197 169 1694 7071 Apprch % 21 55.4 23.6 14 67 19 20.2 55.1 24.7 19.4 70.7 10 Total % 3.2 8.5 3.6 15.4 4.9 23.7 6.7 35.4 5.1 13.9 6.2 25.2 4.6 16.9 2.4 24 Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Imperial Highway
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Imperial Highway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 27 82 35 144 35 226 53 314 52 143 62 257 49 177 25 251 966 07:45 AM 36 135 42 213 39 251 81 371 65 140 66 271 54 136 27 217 1072 08:00 AM 34 114 52 200 59 208 75 342 42 110 56 208 50 165 37 252 1002 08:15 AM 39 63 37 139 65 231 62 358 61 150 73 284 37 142 16 195 976 Total Volume 136 394 166 696 198 916 271 1385 220 543 257 1020 190 620 105 915 4016 % App. Total 19.5 56.6 23.9 14.3 66.1 19.6 21.6 53.2 25.2 20.8 67.8 11.5 PHF .872 .730 .798 .817 .762 .912 .836 .933 .846 .905 .880 .898 .880 .876 .709 .908 .937 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 03_DNY_Wood_Imperial AM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Imperial Highway
Weather: Clear
Woodruff Avenue
Imperial Highway
Imperial Highway
Woodruff Avenue
Right
166
Thru
394
Left
136
InOut Total
1004 696 1700
Right
271
Thru
916
Left
198
OutTotal In
1013 1385 2398
Left
220
Thru
543
Right
257
Out TotalIn
697 1020 1717
Left
190
Thru
620
Right
105
TotalOut In
1302 915 2217
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM
+0 mins. 27 82 35 144 35 226 53 314 52 143 62 257 42 149 18 209 +15 mins. 36 135 42 213 39 251 81 371 65 140 66 271 49 177 25 251 +30 mins. 34 114 52 200 59 208 75 342 42 110 56 208 54 136 27 217 +45 mins. 39 63 37 139 65 231 62 358 61 150 73 284 50 165 37 252 Total Volume 136 394 166 696 198 916 271 1385 220 543 257 1020 195 627 107 929 % App. Total 19.5 56.6 23.9 14.3 66.1 19.6 21.6 53.2 25.2 21 67.5 11.5 PHF .872 .730 .798 .817 .762 .912 .836 .933 .846 .905 .880 .898 .903 .886 .723 .922 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 03_DNY_Wood_Imperial PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 1
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Imperial Highway
Weather: Clear
Groups Printed- Total Volume
Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Imperial Highway
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Imperial Highway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 55 96 46 197 64 168 41 273 38 108 80 226 25 283 28 336 1032 04:15 PM 60 100 38 198 47 142 37 226 29 105 82 216 32 290 24 346 986 04:30 PM 57 124 57 238 56 175 19 250 25 92 75 192 18 342 25 385 1065 04:45 PM 74 122 46 242 40 129 29 198 34 114 83 231 30 310 37 377 1048 Total 246 442 187 875 207 614 126 947 126 419 320 865 105 1225 114 1444 4131 05:00 PM 65 117 51 233 63 206 43 312 33 112 84 229 28 338 34 400 1174 05:15 PM 50 99 42 191 53 153 25 231 33 107 95 235 24 303 34 361 1018 05:30 PM 57 71 23 151 62 200 34 296 32 92 65 189 24 291 26 341 977 05:45 PM 24 94 30 148 46 169 60 275 24 106 54 184 26 251 23 300 907 Total 196 381 146 723 224 728 162 1114 122 417 298 837 102 1183 117 1402 4076 Grand Total 442 823 333 1598 431 1342 288 2061 248 836 618 1702 207 2408 231 2846 8207 Apprch % 27.7 51.5 20.8 20.9 65.1 14 14.6 49.1 36.3 7.3 84.6 8.1 Total % 5.4 10 4.1 19.5 5.3 16.4 3.5 25.1 3 10.2 7.5 20.7 2.5 29.3 2.8 34.7 Woodruff Avenue
Southbound
Imperial Highway
Westbound
Woodruff Avenue
Northbound
Imperial Highway
Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 57 124 57 238 56 175 19 250 25 92 75 192 18 342 25 385 1065 04:45 PM 74 122 46 242 40 129 29 198 34 114 83 231 30 310 37 377 1048 05:00 PM 65 117 51 233 63 206 43 312 33 112 84 229 28 338 34 400 1174 05:15 PM 50 99 42 191 53 153 25 231 33 107 95 235 24 303 34 361 1018 Total Volume 246 462 196 904 212 663 116 991 125 425 337 887 100 1293 130 1523 4305 % App. Total 27.2 51.1 21.7 21.4 66.9 11.7 14.1 47.9 38 6.6 84.9 8.5 PHF .831 .931 .860 .934 .841 .805 .674 .794 .919 .932 .887 .944 .833 .945 .878 .952 .917 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
File Name : 03_DNY_Wood_Imperial PM
Site Code : 05721620
Start Date : 10/27/2021
Page No : 2
City of Downey
N/S: Woodruff Avenue
E/W: Imperial Highway
Weather: Clear
Woodruff Avenue
Imperial Highway
Imperial Highway
Woodruff Avenue
Right
196
Thru
462
Left
246
InOut Total
641 904 1545
Right
116
Thru
663
Left
212
OutTotal In
1876 991 2867
Left
125
Thru
425
Right
337
Out TotalIn
804 887 1691
Left
100
Thru
1293
Right
130
TotalOut In
984 1523 2507
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM

Total Volume
Peak Hour Data
North
Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Each Approach Begins at:
04:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:30 PM 04:30 PM
+0 mins. 60 100 38 198 63 206 43 312 25 92 75 192 18 342 25 385 +15 mins. 57 124 57 238 53 153 25 231 34 114 83 231 30 310 37 377 +30 mins. 74 122 46 242 62 200 34 296 33 112 84 229 28 338 34 400 +45 mins. 65 117 51 233 46 169 60 275 33 107 95 235 24 303 34 361 Total Volume 256 463 192 911 224 728 162 1114 125 425 337 887 100 1293 130 1523 % App. Total 28.1 50.8 21.1 20.1 65.4 14.5 14.1 47.9 38 6.6 84.9 8.5 PHF .865 .933 .842 .941 .889 .883 .675 .893 .919 .932 .887 .944 .833 .945 .878 .952 Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951)268-6268
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0.5 0.5 1 City:

AM 35 29 108 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 40 27 78 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
22 0 38 0
1523 0 1244 3
2 0 0 4 377 0 344 2

0.5 866 0 1142

0.5 25 0 61
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 0 593 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 1 680 PM
0 2 0 Lanes
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
1558 0 1284 1922 0 1626
891 0 1207 1567 0 1900

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
Date:
1567 0
700 AM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:2/23/2016
Firestone Blvd
445 PM
1558 0 1284
Stewart and Gray Rd
AM Peak Hour
Tuesday
Westbound Approach
NorwalkDay:

Eastbound Approach
Stewart and Gray Rd and Firestone Blvd , Norwalk
PM Peak Hour
1900
22 0
43 Signalized

CONTROL
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Historical
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
NONE
9:00 AM
NONE
194
0 6:00 PM
22 0
Total Volume Per Leg
0 West Leg
3526
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
431
0 432
Northbound Approach
South Leg
East Leg
593
0 0
43145
West Leg
South Leg
24912449 0
East Leg
North Leg
188
3489
1024
0 1113681
172
432
431
0 ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 2 0 1 City:

AM 346 1 89 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 274 0 145 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
0 0 0 0
1624 0 1347 2
0 0 0 0 210 0 134 1
2 1001 0 1238
1 551 0 575
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 PM
0 0 0 Lanes
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
1970 0 1621 1834 0 1481
1552 0 1813 1090 0 1383

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
Date:
1090 0
715 AM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:2/23/2016
Firestone Blvd
500 PM
1970 0 1621
I-605 SB On/Off RampsAM Peak Hour
Tuesday
Westbound Approach
NorwalkDay:

Eastbound Approach
I-605 SB On/Off Ramps and Firestone Blvd , Norwalk
PM Peak Hour
1383
0 0
0 Signalized

CONTROL
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Historical
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
NONE
9:00 AM
NONE
436
0 6:00 PM
0 0
Total Volume Per Leg
0 West Leg
2864
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
762
0 709
Northbound Approach
South Leg
East Leg
0 0 0
0419
West Leg
South Leg
34343522 0
East Leg
North Leg
419
2924
762
0 7090
436
709
762
0 Intersection Turning Movement
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 1 1.5 1.5 City:

AM 810 8 134 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 537 35 231 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
175 0 115 1
916 0 781 2
2 399 0 451 89 0 135 1
2 654 0 695
0 44 0 221
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 79 228 73 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 166 305 156 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
1805 0 1484 1180 0 1031
1097 0 1367 861 0 1082

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM
Date:
861 0
715 AM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:2/23/2016
Firestone Blvd
500 PM
1805 0 1484
I-605 NB Off/On RampsAM Peak Hour
Tuesday
Westbound Approach
NorwalkDay:

Eastbound Approach
I-605 NB Off/On Ramps and Firestone Blvd , Norwalk
PM Peak Hour
1082
802
0 871
Signalized

CONTROL
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Historical
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
NONE
9:00 AM
NONE
1754
0 6:00 PM
802
0 Total Volume Per Leg
0 West Leg
2113
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
141
0 391
Northbound Approach
South Leg
East Leg
380
0 0
871803
West Leg
South Leg
28512902 0
East Leg
North Leg
1674
2041
521
0 1018627
952
391
141
0

Page 1 ends

Downey City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Downey City Council
June 11, 2024