061422-H-22sr&att.pdf — Long Beach City Council, July 12, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA ITEM No. 1 Development Services
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-6194
March17, 2022

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Deny Conditional Use Permit CUP 18 -001 to operate a new 3,058-square-foot detached self -service automated car wash connected to an existing service station and mini mart located at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard within the Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) Zoning District. (District 8) APPLICANT: Ahmad Ghaderi
A & S Engineering C/O
David Delhraim
29501 Canwood Street
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(Application 1801-02)

DISCUSSION
The site is located at the northwest corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard (Attachment A – Vicinity Map) within the Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) Zoning District and has a Neighborhood Serving Centers and Corridors -Low (NSC-L) General Plan PlaceType Designation . The 1.48-acre site is currently developed with a standalone restaurant and a gas station with a mini mart. The existing gas station and mini mart have operated at the subject site in its current configuration since 1989. The restaurant building is currently vacant and undergoing soft demolition and plans for the new restaurant improvement s are under review with the City.

The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct and operate a new 3,058- square-foot detached self -service automated car wash (2,000-square-foot car wash tunnel and 1,058 square feet of equipment rooms and office space) along the north property line . Staff recommends denial of this application on the basis that the project is i nconsistent with a number of General Plan policies, which are discussed in detail later in this report.

The proposed project abuts Dooley Elementary School to the north and west, a convenience store and drug store with a drive-through pharmacy (drive-through is currently closed) to the east across Long Beach Boulevard; to the south, across Del Amo Boulevard, is a gas station with a mini mart and single-family residences; and a gas station with a drive -through car wash and mini mart is located c atty-corner to the site across Long Beach Boulevard. This matter was previously scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on October 1, 2020 and was continued at the Attachment A

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 2 of 7 ends

request of the applicant. The item was rescheduled to be heard in July 2021 by the Planning Commission; at the applicant’s request the matter was not agendized to allow them additional time to coordinate with the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD).

The proposed automated self-service car wash has a modern design that uses quality materials.

The car wash tunnel would have a length of 100 feet and includes two drive up lanes and pay stations and a queuing length of approximately 130 feet before each pay station. The proposed project includes 15 parking stalls for vacuuming (Attachment B – Plans). Site modifications include new landscaping, security cameras, lighting, and a curb cut closure along Long Beach Boulevard.

The car wash would operate between the hours of 7:30 am to 10:00 pm daily.

Certain types of land uses, like car washes, due to the nature of the use, require a CUP. The CUP process allows for the individual review so that the Planning Commission can determine if the use is compatible with the surrounding land uses, can be made compatible with conditions of approval, or is incompatible. The proposed area of the lot which is to be developed with the automated car wash is located on the north end of the site and is currently developed with parking. The car wash would abut the northernmost property line and the playground of Dooley Elementary school. The school and car wash would be separated by an existing 9-foot high block wall.

To address the matter of compatibility, the applicant submitted three focused studies pertaining to sound, air quality, and traffic. Additionally, the applicant has submitted supplemental materials in support of the application , including letters from tw o real estate professionals on the properties best use (Attachment C – Applicant’s Supporting Materials). The air quality analysis was prepared by Rincon Consultants (Attachment D - Air Quality Study). The analysis focused on the pollutant emissions from the vehicles using and queuing at the proposed car wash. The report assumed the car wash would service up to 300 vehicles per day, and the maximum queuing and car wash process time for a vehicle would be in the range of 6-10 minutes. The study evaluated the project based on the Southern California Air Quality Management Districts’ Localized Significance Threshold for criteria pollutants and found that none of the thresholds were exceeded.1

A noise analysis was prepared by BridgeNet International (Attachment E - Noise Analysis) for the project and evaluated the impacts from both the construction and operation of the use. The noise study found that the use of the car wash would not result in v iolations of either the established interior or exterior noise standards when the thresholds were adjusted for the “ambient noise level.”2 The report concludes that the vacuum equipment would not be a significant source of noise since it is located within the building. There is insufficient information in the report regarding the manufacturer and equipment specifications to verify this conclusion.

While the reports conclude there is no significant impact from noise or air quality for the purposes of the state mandated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act

1 Criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the six pollutants in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 2 "Ambient noise level" means the composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location (Long Beach Municipal Code 8.80.020).

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 3 of 7 ends

(CEQA), there are other factors of compatibility that must be con sidered. The Administration Chapter of the Land Use Element (LUE) of the General Plan (see pages 168 -171), establishes that, “Conditional Use Permits are consistent if the proposed project carries out the policies of the Land Use Element and meets the Plac eType density and intensity levels.” The following discussion details the stated policies with which the proposed car wash would be in conflictand would therefore conflict with vision of the LUE and the Zoning Code, an implementation tool of the General Plan. Staff’s recommendation for denial is based on inconsistency with applicable General Plan policies, not on the exceedance of any environmental thresholds pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

The proposed use is adjacent to an elementary school which is classified as a sensitive receptor; children, specifically, are sensitive receptor s as they are m ore susceptible to the impacts of pollution. This project site is located within an area that is documented to be one of the most pollution burdened areas of the City of Long Beach (City) by income (Attachment F - Impacted Community Map). This map is derived from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Cal EnviroScreen which uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to assess the pollution burden and vulnerability of populations by Census tract. This location is within the 90 th percentile or top 10 percent for the most pollution burdened. The proposed car wash will intensify the auto-oriented land uses adjacent to a school and would conflict with many of the stated goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Automobile-oriented uses currently exist on all four corners of the Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard intersection, and the proposed project further intensifies these uses on the subject site. Although the environmental documents concluded no significant exposure/cumulative impacts from the proposed project? the proposed use is contrary to important policies of the General Plan to protect sensitive receptors. While it is largely impossible to quantify the impacts of air pollution on childhood development and health in a manner disaggregated to a single source, it is well documented that cumulative exposure to pollutants has a negative impact on neurodevelopment.

Staff has included a literature summary from the scholarly journal Environment International as Attachment G - Environment International 121 (2018) 199-206.

Specifically, the proposed car wash in this location would not be consistent with the environmental health vision established in the L UE of the General Plan, which promotes the creation of buffers between residential uses and sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospita ls and daycare centers) and facilities such as trucking uses, auto-body shops, drive-through uses, polluting industrial uses and other special use categories that might affect them. Additionally, the proposed project does not support Policy UD 2 -3 of the Urban Design Element which calls for enhancing the built environment through façade improvements, quality and context -sensitive infill development, and landscaping. While the proposed use includes modern high-quality materials, the experience from the pedestrian standpoint walking down the street is further deteriorated rather than enhanced.

This portion of the Long Beach Boulevard is one of the designated walking routes to Dooley Elementary School (Attachment H – Dooley Elementary Walking Routes). The proposed project improvements include eliminating one of the two curb cuts along Long Beach Boulevard which is generally a positive improvement for safe pedestrian circulation. The project has been designed with a dual drive -through lane with approximately 130 feet of queuing length between the pay station and driveway for each lane. It is estimated that there will be up to 738 vehicle trips daily to the car wash or approximately 77 vehicle trips per hour if equally distributed throughout the day.

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 4 of 7 ends

With a total combined queue length of 260 feet between the pay station and driveway, there would be sufficient queue length to accommodate approximately 11 vehicles at one time. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn finds that the site configuration would accommodate the 95th percentile queue of seven vehicles at one time (Attachment I – Traffic). Correspondingly, there remains a probability of approximately five percent, that the car wash queue may be at capacity or greater during peak hours on Fridays or Saturdays after 2 pm. Furthermore, the study recommends restricting parking on adjacent driveway curbs for the purpose of enhancing pedestrian safety. Staff finds that with the potential bunching of trips, occasional equipment malfunction, or user error at the pay station , there would at times be conflicts on site, with the pedestrian path of travel on the sidewalk , and/or south bound traffic on Long Beach Boulevar d.

This conflicts with the required findings for approval.

Additionally, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the compatibility of this use along the walking path and adjacent to the play area with respect to its impact on th e early childhood experience at the school. While air quality levels will not exce ed those maximum standards established under law, there will still be new emissions immediately adjacent to a play area already situated within an area of increased ambient pollution.

Likewise, while the noise is not expected to exceed standards, part of the reason they do not exceed standards is because the ambient noise level in this location is already elevated from the surrounding automotive uses. Under the City’s noise ordinance, elevated noise levels are permitted when they will not increase background noise by more th an five decibels. Children at Dooley already experience higher levels of noise and pollution during recess and this project will further contribute to that problem. Whether the queue for the car wash creates a safety hazard or not, it does further degrade the comfort and perception of safety on that walk to school.

Furthermore, a carwash is already available to the public directly south of the subject parcel as well as at other locations to the north, therefore it is not clear that the proposed use is needed in the requested location to fill any particular community gap or need. The Planning Commission will need to balance these concerns with the fact that the princip al for the school expressed no concerns with the proposed use interfering with the learning environment.

In 2006, the legislature approved S enate Bill 1000, which instructed every City and County to address environmental justice in their General Plan. The City complied with this law by incorporating environmental justice policies within the General Plan, including LU Policy 14 -3 which states “[a]void concentrating undesirable uses, service facilities and infrastructure projects in any manner that results in an inequitable environmental burden on low -income or minority neighborhoods.” In the case of the C UP before the Planning Commission, the Commission will need to determine if the use is undesirable. The existing conditions show that that auto -oriented uses are already over-concentrated near Dooley Elementary school and that air quality conditions create an inequitable environmental burden on the surrounding community.

The existing auto -oriented uses within the project vicinity predate the City’s adoption of environmental justice policies, the adoption of drive through standards and the current General Plan policies which intend to provide equity in the land u se decisions. The environmental justice policies and data are intended to improve the City’s land use decisions going forward so that the overall health of people living within these areas is improved.

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 5 of 7 ends

The current General Plan LUE reflects a substantial shift in how land use regulation is to be considered by the City including in communities with high pollution burdens and existing non - compatible land -uses. LUE Strategy 11 relates to “ [c]reate healthy an d sustainable neighborhoods,” with associated relevant policies: 11-1 Require that land use plans, polices and regulations promote health and wellness and reduce barriers to healthy living, 11-6 Achieve health equity, eliminate disparities and improve health of residents throughout the City, and 11-7 Diminish the impact of drive -through facilities on the pedestrian environment. Strategy 1 6 relates to “[p]revent and reduce disproportionate environmental burdens affecting low -income and minority populations.”

A car wash may be an appropriate use in many locations along major corridors within the greater community but not in this specific location which abuts an elementary school. Furthermore, this particular area is already served by two existing car wash facilities within 1,600 feet or less of the project site. Allowing the car wash would also be contrary to General Plan land use Policy 10-1 to, “ensure neighborhoods contain a variety of functional attributes that contribute to residents’ day - to-day living, including schools, parks and commercial and public spaces.” Based on staff’s public outreach for the on -going Uptown Planning Land Use and Neighborhood plan (UPLAN) zoning code update efforts in North Long Beach , there is an expressed need for a wider range of neighborhood-serving commercial uses such as banking, retail, and dining within the North Long Beach area, and a simultaneous concern about the overconcentration of auto-oriented uses such as the proposed car wash use.

The development of new zones for the larger area after an extensive community outreach process and the City -initiated rezoning of key corridors such as Atlantic Avenue and Artesia Boulevard acknowledged th ese neighborhood conditions . As a result, new applicable zoning districts introduced zoning regulations that prohibit new auto-oriented use s and create incentives for needed uses such as banks and grocery stores in the area, consistent with NSC-L PlaceType goal to accommodate the range commercial uses to meet consumers’ daily nee ds. A systematic geographic rezoning consistent with the 2019 LUE is ongoing, and it is anticipated that more of the City’s corridors such as Long Beach Boulevard will be rezoned to such zones that better implement General Plan policies and encourage a diverse mix of commercial uses and mixed commercial and residential development. While the commercial uses that currently exist on the site are long-standing uses, sites such as the subject site are also going to become increasingly important to meeting the City’s State-mandated housing production goals.

The materials submitted by the applicant (Attachment C) do reference the proposed development as the most economically viable and submit two expert opinions that the site is not viable for residential development. The Planning Commission should consider these materials, including the possibility that denial of the CUP request may result in the continued vacant or blighted state of the site for some period of time. At the same time, the Planning Commission may wish to consider that the 38-townhome 5100 Long Beach Boulevard residential project, across the street from the proposed car wash, was viable, was approved by the Planning Commission in 2020 and is now in construction. The applicant’s materials do not consider a consolidated development combining the adjacent closed restaurant site with the subject parcel and make reference to the cost of podium structured parking as well as rising lumber prices. There are housing models, such as the attached townhome project at 5100 Long Beach Boulevard that do not include costly structured parking

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 6 of 7 ends

and, while still elevated, the temporary COVID-19 related supply issues impacting lumber prices have begun to reverse.

While staff recommen ds denial of the subject application, the Planning Commission should carefully consider the merits of the request and the policy tradeoffs inherent in this application.

Denial will result in some period of vacancy at the subject site; furthermore, under certain circumstances that period of vacancy could extend many years into the future. In the view of staff, the potential impacts of the project on the adjacent school pl ayground, combined with the overconcentration of automobile-oriented uses and the opportunity cost of not using the land for a project more -consistent with the L UE vision make the recommendation clear. The applicant however does raise substantial and valid counter points both about the benefit of the car wash as well as the reasonableness or likelihood that a different, more desirable in the view of the City, use will emerge after the denial of this requested entitlement.

Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the use , as the findings regarding compatibility and consistency cannot all affirmatively be made in support of the car wash in this location adjacent to an elementary school (Attachment J – Findings).

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

A Notice of Application was sent to the local community groups on February 26, 20 18, and 90 Public Hearing Notices were distributed on March 2, 2022, in accordance with the provision of the Zoning Ordinance.

At the time of writing the original staff report in October of 2020 staff received one letter from the Principal of Dooley Elementary School which did not express opposition to the project. In May of 2021 staff has received an email from the facility development staff with LBUSD sta ff which indicated opposition without further analysis and resolution of their concerns (Attachment K – Public Comment). In February 2022 City staff met virtually with the LBUSD facility development staff who affirmed that there was no change in the District’s position.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The recommendation of the proposed project is to deny the project therefore CEQA review is not required.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________

ALEXIS OROPEZA

CURRENT PLANNING OFFICER

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
March 17, 2022

Page 7 of 7 ends

____________________________
PATRICIA A. DIEFENDERFER, AICP

PLANNING BUREAU MANAGER
___________________________

CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

___________________________
OSCAR W. ORCI

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

OO:CK:PD:ao

Attachments: Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Plans
Attachment C - Applicant’s Supporting Materials
Attachment D - Air Quality Study
Attachment E - Noise Analysis
Attachment F - Impacted Community Map
Attachment G - Environment International 121 (2018) 199-206 Attachment H - Dooley Elementary Walking Routes
Attachment I - Traffic
Attachment J - Findings
Attachment K – Public Comment

DOOLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
W 51ST ST

W PLEASANT ST

W DEL AMO BLVD

LONG BEACH BLVD
E 51ST ST

E HOME ST

W HOME ST

E DEL AMO BLVD

E PLEASANT ST

VIRGINIA AVE

CEDAR AVE

PINE AVE

E HOME ST

VIRGINIA AVE
Subject Property:

APNs: 7132-028-017, 7132-028-019,
7132-028-039, & 7132-028-040
Application No. 1801-02
Council District 8
Zoning Code : CCA
5 47
3 1
9 8
6 2´
80 0 80 16040
Feet
Attachment B

LONG BEACH BOULEVARD
CL

DEL AMO BOULEVARDCL

A & S ENGINEERING
Platinum Energy
1 2
3 Attachment C

From:

To: Alexis Oropeza; Jorge Ramirez
Cc:

Subject: Proposed carwash at 5005 Long Beach, Long Beach Date: Monday, September 21, 2020 4:34:37 PM
-EXTERNAL-
Good afternoon Jorge,
Please see email below in support of our project. We have provided the information that was supplied to you to Ms. Chiles and we received the email below.

Look forward to your supportive staff report.

Sincerely,
Ahmad Ghaderi
A & S Engineering, Inc.
28405 Sand Canyon Road, suite “B”
Canyon Country, CA., 91387
Ph: 661-250-9300
FX: 661-250-9333
From: Nicole Howton Chiles
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Ahmad Ghaderi
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Proposed carwash at 5005 Long Beach, Long Beach Thank you for sharing with me the details of your project. All of my questions were answered and I have no concerns that this car wash will interfere with our learning environment.

Thank you again.

I wish you all the best.

NICOLE
Nicole Howton Chiles, Principal
Dooley Elementary School
5075 Long Beach Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90805
(562) 428-7274
"Education is the most powerful weapon we can use
to change the world." ~ Nelson Mandela
Attachment D

1 Alexis Oropeza
Subject: FW: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. & 6090 Long Beach Blvd.

From: Tracy Nishihira
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Alexis Oropeza <[email protected]>
Cc: ALAN REISING David Miranda
Subject: RE: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. & 6090 Long Beach Blvd.

-EXTERNAL-

Good morning Alexis,

I appreciate your patience as the District reviewed the documents provided by the City for these projects.

Based upon our preliminary evaluation of the project exhibits provided for the proposed car wash at 5005 Long Beach Blvd., we have the following concerns:
- District concurs with the City’s finding that the existing wall is not an adequate buffer between incompatible uses and that project will expose students to elevated levels of noise and air pollutants, particularly due to proximity of the 22-6” tall building to the only play field and apparatus available to 1st-5th grade students on the Dooley ES school site. The proposed structure would only be 1’-1” away from the 9’-0” high wall separating the two lots. The project documents do not illustrate the proximity but is roughly shown here:

2 - Applicant’s assessment of noise levels in relation to school building location is not adequate. Play areas need to be taken into consideration also. District concurs with City that students at Dooley already experience higher levels of noise and pollution during recess that will be further impacted by the project. - Construction will impact the Dooley ES site as it is not reasonable to expect that the construction of the building on the north side can be completed within 1’-
1” of space. Potential impact to trees along the north property line also.
- Detailed peer review is necessary to applicant’s Air Quality Study and Greenhouse Gas study to ensure emission factors/modeling used are adequate and vehicle and equipment detail/usages are accurate to confirm impacts as less than significant. Study is based on 600 trips per day which is 25% less than trips noted in applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis.
- District concurs with City finding that traffic, particularly during peak hours, would conflict with the pedestrian path creating safety hazards.

Until further analysis is completed and items of concern resolved, District fully concurs with City’s recommendation to deny the project permit.

Thank you,

Tracy Nishihira, AIA
Interim Planning Administrator
Long Beach USD – Facilities Development & Planning

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 562-997-7550 | Cell:

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

From: Alexis Oropeza
To: Patricia Diefenderfer
Subject: FW: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. & 6090 Long Beach Blvd.

Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 11:33:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png

Alexis Oropeza
Current Planning Officer

Long Beach Development Services I Planning Bureau
T 562.570.6413

562.570.6068
411

West

Ocean

Blvd.,

3rd

Floor

Long

Beach,

90802
[email protected] I www.lbds.info

From:

Tracy

Nishihira

<[email protected]>

Sent:

Monday,

June

2021

11:25

AM
To:

Alexis

Oropeza

<[email protected]>
Cc:

ALAN

REISING

<[email protected]>;

David

Miranda

<[email protected]>
Subject:

RE:

5005

Long

Beach

Blvd.

6090

Long

Beach

Blvd.

-EXTERNAL-

Good

morning

Alexis,

That

correct.

The

revised

studies

not

address

these

concerns.

Thank

you,

Tracy Nishihira, AIA
Interim Planning Administrator
Long

Beach

USD

–

Facilities

Development

Planning

Email:

[email protected]
Phone: 562-997-7550 | Cell:

The

content

this

confidential

and

intended

for

the

recipient

specified

message

only.

strictly
forbidden

any

part

this

message

with

any

third

party,

without

written

consent

the

sender.

you
received

this

message

mistake,

please

this

message

and

with

its

deletion,

that

can

ensure
such

mistake

does

not

occur

the

future.

From:

Alexis

Oropeza

[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:

Monday,

June

07,

2021

9:25

AM
To:

Tracy

Nishihira

<[email protected]>
Cc:

ALAN

REISING

<[email protected]>; David Miranda <[email protected]> Subject:

RE:

5005

Long

Beach

Blvd.

6090

Long

Beach

Blvd.

- This message originated from outside the Long Beach Unified School District. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the contents are safe.

Hi Tracy,

wanted

clarify

that

the

comments

provided

from

the

school

district

remain

even

based

the

revised

studies

that

were

attached

email.

Thank

you,

Alexis Oropeza
Current Planning Officer

Long Beach Development Services I Planning Bureau
T 562.570.6413

562.570.6068
411

West

Ocean

Blvd.,

3rd

Floor

Long

Beach,

90802
[email protected] I www.lbds.info

From:

Tracy

Nishihira

<[email protected]>
Sent:

Monday,

May

24,

2021

10:23

AM
To:

Alexis

Oropeza

<[email protected]>
Cc:

ALAN

REISING

<[email protected]>; David Miranda <[email protected]> Subject:

RE:

5005

Long

Beach

Blvd.

6090

Long

Beach

Blvd.

-EXTERNAL-

Good

morning

Alexis,

appreciate

your

patience

the

District

reviewed

the

documents

provided

the

City

for

these

projects.

Based

upon

our

preliminary

evaluation

the

project

exhibits

provided

for

the

proposed

car

wash

5005

Long

Beach

Blvd.,

have

the

following

concerns:

District concurs with the City’s finding that the existing wall is not an adequate buffer between incompatible uses and that project will expose students to elevated levels of noise and air pollutants, particularly due to proximity of the 22-6” tall building to the only play field and apparatus

available

1st-5th grade students on the Dooley ES school site. The proposed structure would only be 1’-1” away from the 9’-0” high wall separating the two lots. The project documents do not illustrate the proximity but is roughly shown here:

Applicant’s assessment of noise levels in relation to school building location is not adequate. Play areas need to be taken into consideration also. District concurs with City that students at Dooley already experience higher levels of noise and pollution during recess that will be further impacted

the

project.

Construction will impact the Dooley ES site as it is not reasonable to expect that the construction of the building on the north side can be completed within 1’-1” of space. Potential impact to trees along the north property line also.

Detailed peer review is necessary to applicant’s Air Quality Study and Greenhouse Gas study to ensure emission factors/modeling used are adequate and vehicle and equipment detail/usages are accurate to confirm impacts as less than significant. Study is based on 600 trips per day which

25%

less

than

trips

noted

applicant’s

Traffic

Impact

Analysis.

District concurs with City finding that traffic, particularly during peak hours, would conflict with the pedestrian path creating safety hazards.

Until further analysis is completed and items of concern resolved, District fully concurs with City’s recommendation to deny the project permit.

Thank you,

Tracy Nishihira, AIA
Interim Planning Administrator
Long Beach USD – Facilities Development & Planning

Email:
[email protected]
Phone: 562-997-7550 | Cell:

From: Tracy Nishihira
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 4:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: ALAN REISING <[email protected]>; David Miranda <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. & 6090 Long Beach Blvd.

Good afternoon Alexis,

Thank
you for the reminder…my apologies for not responding to your prior email. It was sent to my alternate email address and was buried amongst a slew of other emails. We will respond within the week.

Thanks
again,

Tracy Nishihira, AIA
Planning PM / Interim Planning Administrator

Long Beach USD - Facilities Development & Planning Branch 2425 Webster Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90810
t: 562-997-7550
c 7
e: lbschools.net

www.lbschoolbonds.net

From: Alexis Oropeza [
mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:31 PM
To: ALAN REISING <[email protected]>; [email protected]; David Miranda <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. & 6090 Long Beach Blvd.

- This message originated from outside the Long Beach Unified School District. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the contents are safe.

Hi All,

I am writing in follow up to find out if the District has any comments regarding the proposed car wash at 5005 Long Beach Blvd., located just south of Dooley Elementary School.

Additionally,
I wanted to know if there were any specific conditions the district would like to to see incorporated into the project at 6090 Long Beach Blvd, in the event that it is approved.

Sincerely,

Alexis Oropeza
Current Planning Officer

Long Beach Development Services I Planning Bureau
T 562.570.6413
F
562.570.6068
411 West Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor I Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected] I www.lbds.info

From: Alexis Oropeza
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:01 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 5005 Long Beach Blvd.

Hi All,

Thanks
for the meeting this morning. In follow up I am sending you the background information on the car wash at 5005 Long Beach Blvd.

It was agendized for the October 1st Planning Commission meeting with a recommendation for denial. The matter was continued at the applicant’s request.

Planning
Commission October 1st Agenda, See Agenda Item 8 here: http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=805961&GUID=56858238-BD2D-4D24-9404-6460D1879744

The following is a link to letter: http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=8811155&GUID=D9EA6BF4-007B-4A78-A1E5-8174D8DA846C

Since
October the applicant has updated the review of the traffic queuing and moved the pay station closer to the car wash tunnel. Attached is the updated study and site plan that the City is currently under review.

Please let us know if you have any comments on this on or before May 10th.

Thank
you,

Alexis Oropeza
Current Planning Officer

Long Beach Development Services I Planning Bureau
T 562.570.6413
F
562.570.6068
411 West Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor I Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected] I www.lbds.info

To help balance the City’s budget during this economic downturn, some services are closed on alternating Fridays for staff furloughs (unpaid time off). These furloughs affect many operations in all City Departments and help prevent significant service reductions to the community. To see a schedule of impacted service days, visit www.longbeach.gov/furlough. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

1 Heather Flores
From: Laurie C. Angel
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:43 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners
Subject: Comments on March 17 Agenda item 1
‐EXTERNAL‐

Regarding the CUP for the proposed car wash at 5005 Long Beach Blvd.I have looked through the attachments and I see nothing that explains how cars exit the car wash onto the street. It looks as though the proposed use barely has any room at all to operate without encroaching on the adjacent va cant property (former Sizzler property).

You must consider how the proposed use will impact the ability of this adjacent (Sizzler) property to sell, and develop in the future. Truly, this is pretty poor land use for such an important corner. The property should be given better long term conside ration for the promise of improved development. The car wash would undoubtedly adversely impact any decent development to the Sizzler property in the future.

It seems that a car wash is merely a last ditch effort to improve profits for the gas station at the expense of proper development ifor he area
. There are car washes on other corners. How many car washes do you need at one intersection? How does a car wash impact water and sewage usage?

Also, since this is right next to a school, I am concerned about the noise, trash, dirt and water borne dirt that may mak e
its way onto or near the Dooley School property.

Regards,

Laurie Angel
Jane Addams Neighborhood Association

Attachment E

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

FINDINGS
Application No. 1801-02 (CUP 18-001)
5005 Long Beach Boulevard
June 14, 2022

Pursuant to Section 21.25.206 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit can be granted only when positive findings are made consistent with the following criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. These findings and staff analysis are presented for consideration, adoption and incorporation into the record of proceedings:

1. THE APPROVAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH AND DOES NOT CARRY OUT

THE GENERAL PLAN, ANY APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLANS SUCH AS THE

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND ALL ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE APPLICABLE DISTRICT;

The project site (1.48 acres), which includes two (2) existing buildings (dine -in restaurant, gas station with mini mart ) situated within the southerly portion of the project site and adjacent to Del Amo Boulevard and west of Long Beach Boulevard .

The proposed self -service drive-through car wash would be located within the northerly portion of the project site, adjacent to the playground of Dooley Elementary School. This area most recently served as a passive parking area , which is now fenced off prohibiting its use . The project site has an underlying General Plan Designation of Neighborhood Serv ing Centers and Corridors -Low (NSC-L) which encourages a variety of commercial uses to meet consumers’ daily need s and is within the Community Commercial - Automobile Oriented (CCA) Zoning District which is intended for retail and service -related uses capa ble of supporting the entire community. The NSC-L PlaceType also allows residential and mixed residential and commercial development.

The Administration Chapter of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (see pages 168-171), establishes that, “ Conditional Use Permits are consistent if the proposed project carries out the policies of the Land Use Element and meets the PlaceType density and intensity levels.” Following are the policies that with which the proposed car wash would be in conflict, contrary to the stated policies, and would create a conflict with vision of the Land Use Element and the Zoning Code, an implementation tool to the General Plan.

The project site is located within 1,600 feet of two existing car wash facilities: 1) a self-service drive through car wash located across the street from the project site at 113 E. Del Amo Boulevard; and 2) a do-it-yourself carwash is located north of the site at 5190 Long Beach Boulevard. General Plan Land Use Policy No. 10 establishes a policy, “of ensuring that neighborhoods contain a variety of functional attributes that contribute to residents’ day -to-day living, including schools, parks and commercial and public spaces.” With two existing commercial car wash options , this particular Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022

Page 2 ends

community need is being met, whereas there are other expressed needs for a greater diversity of neighborhood-serving uses including but not limited to banks and grocery stores, as an example, as captured by the Uptown Planning Land Use and Neighborhood (UPLAN) zoning code update efforts in North Long Beach .

Furthermore, t he General Plan seeks to achieve more equitable outcomes. The proposed use in this location intensifies the existing auto-centric uses adjacent to a school facility and would be counter to tho se guiding principles in this location adjacent to an elementary school.

The established purpose of the Zoning Code includes protecting institutional uses such as the adjacent Dooley Elementary School from the intrusion of incompatible uses (LBMC 20.10.0 20). A 9-foot perimeter wall serves as a buffer between the school and car wash. However, that does not mitigate all relevant concern s about compatibly as the project site is located within an area that is documented to be one of the most pollution-burdened areas of the city by income (Attachment F - Impacted Community Map) . The elementary school is a sensitive
receptor; children, specifically, are sensitive receptors as they are more susceptible to the impacts of pollution. Contrary to the goal of prohibiting incompatible uses, the proposed car wash would intensify the auto-oriented land uses adjacent to a school.

The proposed car wash in this location would not be consistent with the environmental health vision established in the Land Use Element of the General Plan (page 6) which promotes the creation of buffers between residential uses and sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals and daycare centers) and facilities such as freeways, industries, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the Long Beach Airport that might affect them. Additionally, the proposed project does not support Policy UD 2 -3 of the Urban Design Element as it is not a context sensitive design or use. This policy ca lls for enhancing the built environment through façade improvements, quality and context-sensitive infill development, and landscaping. The proposed use is inconsistent with LUE Strategy 11, Policy 11 -1, 11-6, 11-7, Policy 14-3, and Strategy 16. Broadly, the use of the subject parcel as a car wash will expose pedestrians, residents , and, in particular , adjacent elementary school children to elevated levels of noise and air pollutants. The existing environmental setting is disadvantaged both with respect to its current pollutant load as well as demographic and h ealth indicators. Introducing additional auto -oriented uses to this location is inconsistent with the environmental justice policies of the General Plan.

2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING

COMMUNITY INCLUDING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL
WELFARE, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR QUALITY OF LIFE; AND

The proposed car wash with dual drive -through queuing lanes would be located within the northernmost portion of commercial that is currently unused and was most recently used for passive parking. The drive-through lanes are designed as dual queuing lanes that merge at the drive -through tunnel entrance. The drive - through lanes have also accommodated a by -pass or exit lane to e xit the drive - through facility if so desired by the patron. The length of the queuing lanes between Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022

Page 3 ends

the car wash menu payment station and the driveway approach on Long Beach Boulevard is approximately 260 feet (130 feet each lane). The City Councils finds that with the bunching of trips (especially during peak hours), occasional equipment malfunction, or periodic user error at the pay station, there would be times when vehicles on site would conflict with the pedestrian path of travel on the adjacent sidewalk, and with south bound traffic on Long Beach Boulevard that would create a hazard. Per the Focus ed Air Quality Analysis prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. on August 21, 2020, air quality emissions from the vehicles using the car wash would be be low both regional and localized thresholds from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized thresholds are used to determine impacts to the nearby community, such as the elementary school. While the report concludes there is no significant i mpact from noise or air quality, there are limitations to those studies and there are other factors of compatibility that must be considered. The proposed use is adjacent to an elementary school which is classified as a sensitive receptor; children, specifically, are sensitive receptors as they are more susceptible to the impacts of pollution.

This project site is located within an area that is documented to be one of the most pollution-burdened areas of the city by income ( Attachment F -Impacted Community Map). This map is derived from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Cal EnviroScreen which uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to assess the pollution burden and vulnerability of populations by census tract. This location is within the 9 5th percentile or top five percent for the most pollution burdened. The proposed car wash will intensify the auto-oriented land uses adjacent to a school and would conflict with the stated goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code. While it is largely impossible to quantify the impacts of air pollution on childhood development and health in a manner disaggregated to a single source, it is well documented that cumulative exposure to pollutants has a nega tive impact on neurodevelopment. A literature summary from the scholarly journal Environment International (Attachment X) incorporated by reference.

The proposed car wash in this location would not be consistent with the environmental health vision establ ished in the Land Use Element of the General Plan , which promotes the creation of buffers between residential uses and sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals and daycare centers) and facilities such trucking uses, auto- body shops, drive -through uses , polluting industrial uses and other special use categories that might affect them. Within approximately 500 feet of the school there are two drive throughs (fast food and pharmacy), one car wash, and four gas stations.

General Plan Land Use Policy 14 -3 to “[a]void concentrating undesirable uses, service facilities and infrastructure projects in any manner that results in an inequitable environmental burden on low -income or minority neighborhoods.” Allowing another auto-oriented use would be inconsistent in this location as it would contribute to the generation of new emissions in an area already overburdened with pollution.

Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022

Page 4 ends

3. THE APPROVAL IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE SPECIAL

CONDITIONS FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USES, AS LISTED IN CHAPTER

21.52. Section 21.52.206 states that the following conditions shall apply to auto repair shops, service stations, car washes, auto upholstery shops, auto parts and tire sales uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit:

A. The proposed use shall not intrude into a concentration of retail uses and not impede pedestrian circulation between retail uses.

As proposed the car wash will not intrude into a concentration of retail uses and not impede pedestrian circulation between retail uses as the car wash will be developed on a vacant and underutilized portion of an existing commercial development that consists of a dine -in restaurant and service station. The project does however diminish an established walkin g route to the adjacent elementary school and degrade the pedestrian environment.

B. The proposed use shall not create unreasonable obstructions to traffic circulation around or near the site.

The proposed project fronts on Long Beach Boulevard, which serves as one of the designated school walking routes to the adjacent Dooley Elementary School. T he project has been designed with a dual drive -through lane with approximately 130 feet of queuing length between the pay station and driveway for each lane. It is estimated that there will be up to 738 vehicle trips daily to the car wash or approximately 77 vehicle trips per hour if equally distributed throughout the day. With a total combined queue length of 260 feet between the pay station and driveway , there would be sufficient queue length to accommodate approximately 11 vehicle s at one time . The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn finds that th e site configuration would accommodate the 95 th percentile queue of seven vehicles at one time.

Correspondingly, there remains a probability of approximately five percent, that the car wash queue may be at capacity or greater during peak hours on Fridays or Saturdays after 2 p.m.

C. No curb cuts shall be permitted within forty feet (40’) of any public roadway intersection.

The proposed car wash will not necessitate the need to create any new or additional curb cuts or approaches to accommodate ingress/egress from the project site. As demonstrated by the site plan ( Attachment B), access will be achieved via a n existing approach which currently serves the existing fueling facility.

Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022

Page 5 ends

D. No vehicles may be stored at the site for the purposes of sale, unless the use is also, vehicle sales lot or for use as parts for vehicles under repair.

The proposed car wash would not result in the need to store vehicles for sale or repair. The self -service drive-through car wash is designed as an ancillary use to the existing fueling facility. No vehicle storage, repairs or sales are associated with the current or proposed use.

E. The site shall comply with all applicable development standards for open storage and repair uses specified in chapter 21.45. “Special Development Standards”.

As previously described above, the proposed car wash will not result in the need to store vehic les for sale or repair. The self -service drive-through car wash is designed as an ancillary use to the existing fueling facility. No vehicle storage, repairs or sales are associated with the current or proposed use.

F. In the CB District, such uses shall be limited to locations inside parking structures:

The subject property is located in the CCA Zoning District therefore, this condition is not applicable.

G. In the CR and CO zones, Conditional Use Permit shall be limited to the expansion of existing nonconforming uses;

The subject property is located in the CCA Zoning District. Th erefore, this condition is not applicable.

4. THE RELATED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, IF APPLICABLE, IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, AS LISTED IN SECTION 21.45.400

Section 21.45.400 specifies types of projects that require compliance with green building standards. The proposed use is only 2,000 square feet in size below the established 50,000 square foot minimum threshold requiri ng compliance with Section 21.45.400 and therefore, this section of the Municipal Code would not be applicable to the proposed use.

Attachment F
The Wolff Company 1
Report#2019-XXX
Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash
Long Beach, California
Prepared for:

A & S Engineering
28405 Sand Canyon Road, Suite B
Canyon Country, CA 91387
Mike Holritz, INCE
20201 SW Birch Street, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
714-272-2302
[email protected]
Attachment G
Report #2019-003-D
Revised June 22, 2021
Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 2

1.0 Definitions

• Noise is undesired sound.

• Sound is defined as vibrations traveling through the air or another medium that can be heard when they reach the ear.

• Decibel (dB) is a unit used to measure the level of a sound by comparing it with a given reference level on a logarithmic scale. One decibel equals 10 times the common logarithm of the power ratio.

• “A-Weighting” is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear.

• Lmax is the highest sound pressure level during a measurement period.

• L(N) or L% is a statistical method of describing noise which accounts for variance in noise levels throughout a given measurement period. L(N) is a way of expres sing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example , since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for five minutes in a twenty-minute measurement period.

2.0 Introduction

This report addresses the potential noise impacts of the planned 5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash on the adjacent properties. The car wash location is shown in Figure 1. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 depicts the project site on an aerial with the adjacent school shown.

The facility is now planning to use Aerodry A120 blowers. Noise levels from the proposed car wash will be determined at the adjacent school. These noise levels will then be compared to the City of Long Beach Noise Ordinance limits and other City requirements.

3.0 Noise Standards

The project site is adjacent to the Dooley Elementary School to the north, and the Sizzler restaurant to the south. According to the Noise District Map in th e City’s Noise Ordinance, the project is in District 1. Section 8.80.150 of the Long Beach Noise Ordinance specifies the City’s exterior noise stan dards. Section 8.80.170 of t he Noise Ordinance specifies the interior n oise standards. The criteria contained in the City’s Noise O rdinance are given in term s of allowable noise levels for a given period of time at the affected property. It is our unde rstanding that the City will require the car wash nois e levels at the school playground to meet the exterior standards, and the c ar wa sh noise levels inside the school buildings need to meet the in terior standards. Although the standards apply at all times, for this project they would only be relevant while school is in session. The City of Long Beach Noise Ordinance limits are present ed below in Table 1 and Table 2.

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 3

Figure 1 – Project Location

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 4

Figure 2 – Project Site Plan

Dooley Elementary School

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 5

Figure 3 – Project Site Plan on Aerial

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 6

Table 1

CITY OF LONG BEACH
EXTERIOR NOISE ORDINANCE CRITERIA (dBA)
___________________________________________________________________

Location Lmax L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50
___________________________________________________________________

School Playground 70 65 60 55 50
___________________________________________________________________

Table 2

CITY OF LONG BEACH
INTERIOR NOISE ORDINANCE CRITERIA (dBA)
__________________________________________________

Location Lmax L1.7 L8.3
__________________________________________________

School Buildings 55 50 45
__________________________________________________

The ordinance states that if the ambient conditions are louder t han the ordinance limits, the ambient conditions essentially become the new (adjusted) ordinance limits.

5.0 Ambient Noise Levels

The ordinance states that if the measured ambient level already exceeds the allowable limit, then the limits can be adjusted upwards to the ambient level. Ambie nt noise measurem ents were performed at a location representing the boundary between the car wash and the school. Since access to the sc hool playground was not possi ble, measurements were conducted in the Sizzler parking lot , very close to the location of the exit end of the tunnel. A 9.5’ masonry wall mitigates the traffic noise from Del Amo Boulevard . T herefore, t raffic n oise from Del Amo Boulevard was subtracted out, so the measured noise levels at this location represent the ambient noise levels from Long Beach Boulevard at the nearest playground area.

Three noise measurements were made for approximately thirty minutes each on February 28, 2020, at a normal receptor height of 5 feet above the ground. The measurements were performed during the daytime period, between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. The measurements were made with a Brüel & Kjær Type 2250 Sound Level Meter, which was calibrated befo re and after the measurements. This noise measurement system meets the American National Standards Institute “Type 1” specifications, which is the most accurate type of sound level meter available for community noise measurements. The meter and calibrator have current certification traceable to the Nati onal Institute of Standards and Te chnology (NIST). The resu lts of the ambient noise measurements are presented below in Table 3.

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 7

Table 3

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
______________________________________________________________________________

Time Period Lmax L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50
______________________________________________________________________________

Standard (no adjustment) 70 65 60 55 50

8:10 to 8:40 a.m. 74.8 64.3 60.2 58.5 56.5
10:00 to 10:30 a.m. 80.4 65.9 60.2 58.0 56.5
1:00 to 1:30 p.m. 75.4 67.0 62.0 60.0 58.8

(Lowest Measured
Ambient) 74.8 64.3 60.2 58.0 56.5
______________________________________________________________________________

The measured noise levels were caused by traffic on Long Beach Boulevard and by jet overflights.

The measured ambient traffic noise levels for som e metrics ( The Lmax, L8.3, L25, and L50) exceed the Noise Ordinance limits, so the Noise Ordinance limits for those metrics will be adjusted. According to the Noise Ordinance, if the ambient L1.7, L8.3, L25 and L50 noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance limits, the limits can be adjusted upward to the next 5 dB increment above the measured ambient levels . If the maximum (Lmax) ambient noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance limit, the limit can be adjusted upward to the ambient level . To be conservative, for each met ric, we have used the lowe st measured ambient as the basis for the adjusted Noise Ordinance limit. The adjusted Noise Ordinance limits are shown below in Table

4. Table 4

ADJUSTED EXTERIOR NOISE ORDINANCE CRITERIA
______________________________________________________________________________

Location Lmax L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50
______________________________________________________________________________

School Playground 74.8 65 65 60 60
______________________________________________________________________________

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 8

6.0 Noise Exposure

The project calls for the construction of a car wash facility very similar to an existing car wash at 4294 University Parkway in San Bernardino, California. Noise measurements were conducted at this facility on February 11, 2019 to dete rmine the noise levels expected at the Long Beach car wash site. The major noise -producing components are the blowe rs for the d ryer section. This facility uses 11 Motor City Air One blowers. The blowe rs are set b ack approximately 21 feet from the exit e nd of the tu nnel. The vacuum equipment is located in the equipment room .

Therefore, noise from this source is not expected to be significant.

Using the M otor City Air One blowers, the noise levels would slightly exceed th e City’s Noise Ordinance limits. T herefore, the developer plans to use Aerodry Model A120 Blowers. Data provided by the manu facturer shows that these blowers are 6 dB quieter than the Motor City dryers. With th is equipment, th e noise levels f rom the car wash (including the effect of the existing 9.5’ high wall) are proje cted to be 52.2 dBA at the nearest receptor at the school playground. To rep resent a wor st-case scenario, the equipment w as assumed to run continuously. Therefore, the noise level for all metrics would be 52.2 dBA. This meets the strictest adjusted limit of 56.5 d BA (60 dBA if rounded up) . To meet the exterior standards, the Aerodry equipment must be used. With the Aerodry equipment, no additional mitigation measures are required in order to meet the noise standards. (However, the City is asking for an additional 5 dB of noise reduction. This is addressed later in the report). The remaining analysis is based on the use of Aerodry A120 blowers.

Two school buildings were analyzed, and these are shown in the Appendix. The nearest building is 150 feet to the northwest of the exit end of the tunnel, at an orientation of approxim ately 45 degrees off-axis to the tunnel. The measurements at the San Bernardino site showed that at this orientation, the sound level at a distance of 15 feet from t he tunnel end would 83 dBA.

Extrapolating this to a d istance of 150 f eet yields a noise l evel of 63 dBA. W ith 5 d BA of reduction provided by the existing masonry wall, the noise level at the building face would be 58 dBA. The Aerodry equipment is 6 dB quieter, so the resulting exterior noise level is projected to be 52 dBA.

Another building is 2 00 feet to the north of the entrance end of the tunnel, at an orientation of approximately 80 degre es off-axis to th e tunnel. T he measurements at the San Ber nardino site showed that at this orientation, the sound level a t a di stance of 1 5 feet from the tunne l end was 71 dBA. Extrapolating this to a distance of 210 feet yields a noise level of 48 dBA. With 5 dBA of reduction provided by the existing masonry w all, the noise level at the building face would be 43 dBA. The Aer odry equipment is 6 dB quieter, so the r esulting exterior noise level is projected to be 37 dBA.

With windows open, the noise r eduction of a typical building is at least 1 2 dBA. Therefore, the interior noise levels at these buildi ngs are ex pected to be 40 dBA and 25 dBA, respectively.

These level s meet the City’s strictest ( L8.3) noise s tandard of 45 dBA . Therefore, with the Aerodry Model A120 equipment, the 5005 Long Beach Boulevard car wash is projected to meet all the City’s noise standards without any additional mitigation measures.

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 9

7.0 Additional Noise Reduction

The City is requesting that the project go beyond the Noise Ordinance limi ts, and provide an additional 5 dB of noise reduction above what is projected in the section above. To provide this 5 dB of noise reduct ion, absorptive materials can be added to the car wash tunnel. In o rder to provide some safety m argin, we would rec ommend designing for a t least 7 dB of additional reduction from added absorption.

The car wash tunnel noise levels can be reduced b y approximately 7.5 dB by adding the following absorptive materials:

WALLS AND CEILING:

2,350 square feet of QuietFiber QF4 noise absorption material, available from AcoustiBlok, Inc. (acoustiblok.com). Information on this product is included in the Appendix.

The 7.5 dB noise reduction is based on a tota l of 2,350 square feet of noise absorption material .

In order to a llow the developer some flexibility to adapt to the tunnel configura tion, this total area of absorptive material can be provided by any combinati on of wal l and ceiling panels totaling 2,350 square feet or more. The absorptive material should be dis tributed fairly evenly throughout the tunne l. (If desire d, some of the square footage can be provided using free hanging clouds with the same absorption coefficients).

Calculations show that with this absorptive material added, the sound levels would be reduced at all locations by roughly 7.5 dBA.

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 10

APPENDIX

RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

AND PROJECTED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Including effect of existing 9.5-foot-high masonry wall (the added absorption would reduce these levels by 7.5 dBA)

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 11

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 12

Noise Analysis
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash, City of Long Beach

Report#2019-003-D 13

Traffic Impact Analysis
for the:

Car Wash Development Project
In the City of Long Beach
Prepared for:

A & S Engineering, Inc.

March, 2021
Attachment H

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THE PROPOSED CAR WASH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Prepared for:

A & S Engineering, Inc.

Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
March, 2021

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THE CAR WASH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 4 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Significant Impact Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 5 AREA CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Street System .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Transit Services ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Bike Facilities .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................13 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ...............................................................................................13 Opening Year 2022 Conditions ..........................................................................................................................16 Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions....................................................................................................16 Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................22 Intersection Analysis – Opening Year 2022 Conditions ...................................................................................23 Intersection Analysis – Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions ..............................................................24 Queuing Data Collection ....................................................................................................................................25 Projected Queue Requirements for the Proposed Project .............................................................................25 MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Sight Distance Analysis ......................................................................................................................................30 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDICES
Appendix A Approved Scope of Study Form
Appendix B Traffic Data Collection Sheets
Appendix C Supplemental Trip Generation Information
Appendix D Cumulative Project Information
Appendix E Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Appendix F Drive-Through Queuing Data

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Project Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 – General Plan Street Classification System ............................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 – Existing Local Transit Routes .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5 – Existing Bicycle Network .......................................................................................................................10 Figure 6 – Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Control .................................................................................11 Figure 7 – Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................12 Figure 8 – Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................................................14 Figure 9 – Project-Related Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................................15 Figure 10 – Cumulative Project Locations .............................................................................................................18 Figure 11 – Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................19 Figure 12 – Opening Year 2022 Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................20 Figure 13 – Opening Year 2022 With Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................21 Figure 14 – Queuing Capacity ................................................................................................................................28 Figure 15 – Intersection Sight Distance at Del Amo Boulevard and Project Driveways (Existing Conditions) .31

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Summary of Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................13 Table 2 – Summary of Cumulative Projects ..........................................................................................................17 Table 3 – Summary of Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions ................................................................22 Table 4 – Summary of Intersection Operations – Opening Year 2022 Conditions ............................................23 Table 5 – Summary of Intersection Operations – Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions ......................24 Table 6 - Summary of Drive-Through Queuing Data Collection - Friday .............................................................26 Table 7 - Summary of Drive-Through Queuing Data Collection - Saturday ........................................................27 Table 8 – Sight Distance Requirements .................................................................................................................30 Car Wash Development Project - 1 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR THE PROPOSED CAR WASH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH

INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the project-related traffic impacts associated with the proposed car wash development located at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach, California. The analysis assesses the project impact by providing an analysis of existing and future conditions, with project traffic and with cumulative project traffic. This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) document follows the assumptions established during discussions with the City of Long Beach staff and the approved Scope of Study Form. The approved Scope of Study form is provided in Appendix A.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated June 2020.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will be developed on the northwest corner of Del Amo Boulevard and Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach, California. The project site location is shown in its regional setting on Figure 1. The project will involve the development of a 3,058-square-foot automated car wash with a 2,000- square-foot car wash tunnel and 15 vacuum pumps; and 1,058 square feet of equipment rooms and office space; and will be constructed at an existing gas station with convenience store. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2 . The project will be constructed in a single phase. For purposes of this analysis, the project is assumed to open in 2022, to provide a conservative assessment of future conditions.

The site is bounded by Dooley Elementary School to the north and west, a gas station and restaurant to the south, and Long Beach Boulevard to the east. Ingress to the site will be provided via two unsignalized driveways: one right-in right-out (RIRO) only driveway along Long Beach Boulevard and one RIRO only driveway along Del Amo Boulevard. Egress from the site will be provided via two unsignalized RIRO only driveways along Del Amo Boulevard. The Project would share ingress with the existing gas station and egress with the existing restaurant.
710INTERSTATE
- 2 -
- 3 -
Car Wash Development Project - 4 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS AND METHODOLOGY
Analysis Scenarios
B a s e d o n t he C i t y ’ s g ui de l i ne s a n d pe r t he a p p r ov e d S c o pe o f S t u dy , t h i s t r a f fi c a n a l y si s p r ov i de s a n evaluation of morning and evening peak hour operations for the following scenarios:
· Existing Conditions
· Opening Year 2022
· Opening Year 2022 With Project
Any mitigation measures for the future conditions will be identified, if necessary.

The study area was determined with input from City Staff through the scoping process. A copy of the approved Scope of Study Form, as previously mentioned, is provided in Appendix A. The following study intersections were identified for evaluation:

Study Intersections:

1. Virginia Avenue at Del Amo Boulevard

2. Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard

3. Long Beach Boulevard at 51 st Street

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The Synchro 10 software (Trafficware) was used to analyze the peak hour operations of both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Synchro 10 uses the methodologies outlined in the latest Highway Capacity Manual.

The Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6), published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB), establishes a system whereby highway facilities are rated for their ability to accommodate traffic volumes.

The terminology “Level of Service” is used to provide a qualitative evaluation based on certain quantitative calculations, which are related to empirical values.

Level of Service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections is defined in terms of average vehicle delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and loss of travel time.

Specifically, LOS criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period within the hour analyzed. The average control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move- up time, and final acceleration time, in addition to the stop delay. The Level of Service criteria for the various LOS designations are summarized on the following chart.

Car Wash Development Project - 5 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS

HCM METHODOLOGY
LOS
Average Delay
(sec / vehicle) Description
Signalized Unsignalized
A < 10.0 < 10.0 LOS A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.

B > 10.0 - 20.0 > 10.0 - 15.0
LOS B represents stable flow, but the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.

C > 20.0 - 35.0 > 15.0 - 25.0
LOS C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of operation in which individual users become affected by interaction with others in the traffic stream.

D > 35.0 - 55.0 > 25.0 - 35.0
LOS D represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted, and the driver
experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience.

E > 55.0 - 80.0 > 35.0 - 50.0
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity of the intersection. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform level. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic movement.

F > 80.0 > 50.0
LOS F represents forced, or breakdown flow. This condition occurs when the amount of traffic approaching the
intersection exceeds the volume which can pass through the intersection, resulting in queues and congestion.

Significant Impact Criteria
The City of Long Beach has established LOS D as the threshold for acceptable service level for peak hour intersection volumes. Based on the City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the following c r i t e r i a s h a l l d e t e r m i n e i f t h e a d d i t i o n o f p r o j e c t t r a f f i c w o u l d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e intersection LOS:

Signalized Intersections
· If, under without project conditions, the intersection operates at LOS D or better and the addition of project trips result in an unacceptable LOS (E or F).
· If, under without project conditions, the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS (E or F) the project increases average control delay at the intersection by 2.5 seconds or more. · If, under project conditions, the 95th percentile queue length exceeds the available storage length at any turn bay.

Car Wash Development Project - 6 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Unsignalized Intersections
· If, under project conditions, the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS (E or F). · If the intersection meets the peak-hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic. If the intersection meets the peak-hour traffic signal warrant, all other applicable warrants must also be assessed.

AREA CONDITIONS
This section summarizes the existing roadway circulation network, peak-hour traffic volumes, and existing operating conditions and Level of Service at the study intersections.

Existing Street System
Regional access to the site is provided by the I-710 and the I-405 Freeways. The I-710 Freeway is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the project site. The I-710 Freeway can be accessed via SR-91 Artesia Freeway and the I-405 Freeway. SR-91 Artesia Freeway runs in the east-west direction and is located approximately 2 miles north of the project site. The I-405 Freeway runs in the east-west direction and is located approximately 2 miles south of the project site.

Local access to the project vicinity is provided by several roadways. Roadway classifications were taken from the City of Long Beach Mobility Element. These roadway classifications are shown on Figure 3.

Del Amo Boulevard is a six-lane divided roadway with three lanes in each direction and a raised median within the project vicinity. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. The street is oriented in the east-west direction. Del Amo Boulevard is classified as a Major Avenue in the City of Long Beach Mobility Plan.

Long Beach Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway with two lanes in each direction and a raised median within the project vicinity. Restricted parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour, and 25 miles per hour just north of Del Amo Boulevard when children are present. The street is oriented in the north-south direction. Long Beach Boulevard is classified as a Boulevard in the City of Long Beach Mobility Plan.

Virginia Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The street is oriented in the north-south direction. Virginia Avenue is classified as a Local Street in the City of Long Beach Mobility Plan. 51st Street is a two-lane undivided roadway with one lane in each direction. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street, west of the project site. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. The street is oriented in the east-west direction. 51 st Street is classified as a Local Street in the City of Long Beach Mobility Plan. - 7 -
Car Wash Development Project - 8 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Existing Transit Services
Long Beach Transit Route 51 is a bus route that travels along Long Beach Boulevard within the vicinity of the project. Route 51 operates seven days a week and provides transportation services to the Cities of Long Beach and Signal Hill.

Long Beach Transit Route 191 is a bus route that travels along Del Amo Boulevard within the vicinity of the project. Route 191 operates seven days a week and provides transportation services to the Cities of Long Beach, Carson, Lakewood, Cerritos, and Hawaiian Gardens.

Long Beach Transit Route 192 is a bus route that travels along Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard within the vicinity of the project. Route 192 operates seven days a week and provides transportation services to the Cities of Long Beach, Carson, Cerritos, and Artesia.

Metro Local Line 60 is a bus route that travels along Long Beach Boulevard within the vicinity of the project.

Line 60 operates seven days a week and provides transportation services to the Cities of Long Beach, Compton, Lynwood, South Gate, Huntington Park, Vernon, and Los Angeles.

A map of Existing Local Transit Routes in the City are shown on Figure 4.

Existing Bike Facilities
There are no existing bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project. A map of the Existing Bicycle Network in the City can be found on Figure 5.

Existing Traffic Volumes
E x i s t i n g m o r n i n g p e a k p e r i o d ( 7 : 0 0 t o 9 : 0 0 A M ) a n d e v e n i n g p e a k p e r i o d ( 4 : 0 0 t o 6 : 0 0 P M ) t u r n i n g movement counts were collected for all study intersections. The counts were completed in February, 2021.

Due to impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on current traffic patterns and on closures of local schools and businesses, an approach to factor count volumes was taken into consideration. Historical traffic data for the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard was provided by City staff. These volumes were collected in May, 2018. These historical counts were grown with an ambient growth of 1.5% per year to 2021, to be consistent with newly collected traffic volumes. Overall COVID adjustment factors were then determined based on a comparison of grown historical counts and current counts. These factors, which were then rounded up to be conservative, were a 65% increase in the AM and a 25% increase in the PM over traffic volumes collected in 2021. Traffic counts collected in February, 2021 were increased by 65% in the AM and 25% in the PM to obtain “Existing” traffic volumes for use in the analysis.

The existing lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections are shown inFigure 6. Existing peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections are shown in Figure 7. Peak hour intersection traffic count worksheets are provided in Appendix B. - 9 -
- 10 -
- 11 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street D
LEGEND:= Study Intersection= Turn or Through Lane= Signal= Stop SignD= Defacto Right Turn - 12 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street LEGEND:= Study Intersection= AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Car Wash Development Project - 13 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

PROJECT TRAFFIC
Project Trip Generation
Due to the limited data within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, daily and peak hour trips for the proposed project were determined based on data provided by the applicant for an existing BLISS Car Wash located at 4294 University Parkway in San Bernardino, CA and for an existing BLISS Car Wash located at 600 N Rose Drive in Placentia, CA. Transaction data in 2019 was provided and averaged on a daily basis to indicate the number of vehicles utilizing the car wash facility each hour. Data between these two sites, which are similar in operation to the proposed project, was averaged for trip generation purposes.

Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates are summarized on Table 1 and supplemental trip generation data is presented in Appendix C. The project is estimated to generate 738 daily trips, 64 morning peak hour trips, and 74 evening peak hour trips. These values reflect site volumes on a Friday, which tends to generate higher volumes than on a typical weekday.

Table 1 – Summary of Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Automated Car Wash 3.058 KSF 738 32 32 64 37 37 74
1 Source: Existing BLISS Car Wash at 4294 University Parkway, San Bernardino CA Existing BLISS Car Wash at 600 N Rose Drive, Placentia, CA Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the proposed project were developed with approval from the City Traffic Engineering staff. Trip distribution assumptions are shown on Figure 8.

Based on the proposed project trip distribution, project trips were assigned through the study intersections.

Figure 9 shows new project trips that would be added to the study intersections.

LEGEND:Project SiteTrip DistributionPercentageXX%25%25% 25%
25%- 14 -
- 15 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street LEGEND:= Study Intersection= AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Car Wash Development Project - 16 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
Opening Year 2022 Conditions
Opening Year 2022 traffic forecasts were developed using the following “build-up” forecasting method:
· Existing traffic volumes, plus
· An annual ambient growth rate of 1.5% per year to the Existing traffic volumes, plus · Cumulative projects traffic
§ Cumulative projects consist of projects that have been approved but are not yet built and fully occupied, as well as projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process, but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be “reasonably foreseeable,” and must therefore be included in the Cumulative Projects analysis.

Cumulative Project information was obtained from City of Long Beach Staff at the start of the study process.

The complete list of cumulative projects is provided in Appendix D. For the purpose of this traffic study, the projects were assessed for their proximity to the project site and for their potential to contribute traffic through the study intersections based on their approved or pending land uses. Therefore, not all cumulative projects are anticipated to affect the study area. A summary of the Cumulative Projects is provided onTable

2. The location of the Cumulative Projects in relation to the project site is shown onFigure 10. Cumulative project-related trips at study intersections are shown on Figure 11. Opening Year 2022 peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12.

Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions
Project-related traffic was added to the Opening Year 2022 traffic volumes to develop the Opening Year 2022 With Project peak hour forecasts, which are shown on Figure 13.

Trip Generation Estimates
Proj # Description Land Use
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
1 6151-6191 Atlantic Ave Mixed Use 18.047 KSF 681 11 6 17 33 36 69 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 84 DU 457 8 22 30 23 14 37 Shopping Center 4.600 KSF 174 3 2 5 8 9 17
3 5721 Lime Ave Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 15 DU 82 1 4 5 4 3 7 4 5450 Cherry Ave High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 6.000 KSF 673 33 27 60 36 22 58 5 5100 Long Beach Blvd Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 38 DU 207 4 10 14 10 7 17 6 4800 Long Beach Blvd Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 20 DU 109 2 5 7 5 3 8 7 4000 Via Oro Ave Manufacturing 517.037 KSF 2,032 247 74 321 108 239 347 8 4251 Long Beach Blvd Medical-Dental Office Building 8.559 KSF 298 19 5 24 8 21 29 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 226 DU 1,229 21 60 81 61 39 100 Single-Family Detached Housing 7 DU 66 1 4 5 4 3 7
10 3435-3459 Long Beach Blvd
and 3464 Locust Ave General Office Building 104.227 KSF 1,015 104 17 121 19 101 120 11 3450 Long Beach Blvd General Office Building 15.200 KSF 148 15 2 17 3 15 18 Total Project Trips 4,897 469 238 707 322 512 834
DU = Dwelling Unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet
9 712 Baker St
TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Quantity Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2 5801 Atlantic Ave
Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
- 17 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

March, 2021
405INTERSTATE
710INTERSTATE
- 18 -
LEGEND:= Cumulative Project Location
- 19 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street LEGEND:= Study Intersection= AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes - 20 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street LEGEND:= Study Intersection= AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes - 21 -2. Long Beach Boulevard atDel Amo Boulevard1. Virginia Avenue atDel Amo Boulevard3. Long Beach Boulevard at51st Street LEGEND:= Study Intersection= AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Car Wash Development Project - 22 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The study intersections were analyzed in accordance with the analysis methodology described earlier in this report for the following scenarios:
· Existing Conditions
· Opening Year 2022
· Opening Year 2022 With Project
Intersection Analysis – Existing Conditions
The study intersections were analyzed for Existing Conditions. Intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix E . The Existing Conditions analysis results and Level of Service for the study intersections are presented in Table 3. Review of this table indicates that the following study intersection currently operates at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
Table 3 – Summary of Intersection Operations –
Existing Conditions
Int. # Intersection Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia
Avenue TWSC AM 266.7 F
PM 190.1 F
2 Del Amo Boulevard at Long
Beach Boulevard Signal AM 48.7 D
PM 47.9 D
3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st
Street Signal AM 2.7 A
PM 2.5 A
TWSC – Two-Way Stop Control
The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Existing Conditions. Queuing worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
Car Wash Development Project - 23 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Intersection Analysis – Opening Year 2022 Conditions
The study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 Conditions. Intersection Level of Service worksheets are provided in Appendix E. The Opening Year 2022 Conditions analysis results and Level of Service for the study intersections are presented in Table 4. Review of this table indicates that the following study intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
Table 4 – Summary of Intersection Operations –
Opening Year 2022 Conditions
Int. # Intersection Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia
Avenue TWSC AM 266.7 F
PM 253.3 F
2 Del Amo Boulevard at Long
Beach Boulevard Signal AM 50.6 D
PM 50.3 D
3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st
Street Signal AM 2.7 A
PM 2.5 A
The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 Conditions. Queuing worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
Car Wash Development Project - 24 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Intersection Analysis – Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions The study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions in accordance with the analysis methodology described earlier in this report. Intersection Level of Service worksheetsare provided inAppendix E. The Opening Year 2022 with Project Conditions analysis results and Level of Service for the study intersections are presented in Table 5. Review of this table indicates that the following study intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
Table 5 – Summary of Intersection Operations –
Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions
Without Project With Project
Int. # Intersection Intersection
Control
Peak
Hour
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1 Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia
Avenue TWSC AM 266.7 F 383.4 F
PM 253.3 F 647.6 F
2 Del Amo Boulevard at Long
Beach Boulevard Signal AM 50.6 D 52.3 D
PM 50.3 D 51.5 D
3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st
Street Signal AM 2.7 A 2.8 A
PM 2.5 A 2.5 A
The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions. Queuing worksheets are provided in Appendix E . Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
This is an existing deficiency and the addition of project trips would not impose a significant impact on the study intersection.

Car Wash Development Project - 25 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

QUEUING ANALYSIS
Kimley-Horn performed a queueing analysis to evaluate the adequacy of the drive-through queuing capacity for the proposed project.

The opening to the drive-through lane would be located at the southeast corner of the project site, and would wrap around the east, north, and west sides of the project in a counter-clockwise direction. The drive- through would provide two side-by-side entry lanes and two transaction kiosks. After the transaction kiosks, the two lanes would merge back into a single drive-through lane and proceed through the car wash. There would be approximately 260 feet of total queuing capacity (approximately 130 feet per lane) from the opening of the two drive-through lanes to the two transaction kiosks. This would provide a queuing capacity of 10 to 13 vehicles, assuming 20 to 25 feet per vehicle, from the beginning of the drive-through lanes to the transaction kiosks.

Queuing Data Collection
Drive-through queuing observations and counts were conducted at the following existing car wash site:
· 4294 University Pkwy, San Bernardino
This site location was selected for queuing data collection because of the following site characteristics that are similar to the proposed project:
· Location has drive-through lane with similar project size · Located adjacent to an existing gas station
· Located within 1 mile of an interstate
· Located along a major roadway
The drive-through activity at the data collection site was observed on a Friday from 2:00 PM to 6:00 PM and a Saturday from 10:00 PM to 2:00 PM, during the periods of peak demand. The drive-through queuing data can be found in Appendix F.

The results of the observations are summarized on Table 6 and Table 7 for the Friday and Saturday peak periods, respectively. The data summary on these tables present the observed Average queue, the Peak queue, and the 95th Percentile queue. The peak activity at each site was observed to occur intermittently, with an ebb and flow pattern throughout each peak with periods of lower queuing activity between peaks.

Projected Queue Requirements for the Proposed Project
Assuming the proposed Car Wash development would experience similar queuing activity to the studied site, the typical Peak number of queued vehicles is estimated to be 1 to 4 vehicles on a Friday and 3 to 8 vehicles on a Saturday, with fewer vehicles outside of these peaks. The 95th percentile, which is estimated to be 7 vehicles in its worst case among the observed Friday and Saturday, would occur more frequently than the site peak and is within the capacity of the proposed project with fewer vehicles outside of these peaks.

The proposed project’s drive-through lane would have enough stacking distance for approximately 10-13 vehicles, and there are no anticipated disruptions to onsite circulation resulting from this project queue.

Queues are not anticipated to block the main drive aisles that provide access to other portions of the site.

The proposed site location and queuing capacity is provided on Figure 14.

Car Wash Development Project - 26 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Table 6 - Summary of Drive-Through Queuing
Data Collection - Friday
Site Average
Time Vehicles
2:00-2:15PM 1.5
2:15-2:30PM 1.3
2:30-2:45PM 0.7
2:45-3:00PM 0.8
3:00-3:15PM 1.1
3:15-3:30PM 1.5
3:30-3:45PM 0.5
3:45-4:00PM 1.0
4:00-4:15PM 1.6
4:15-4:30PM 1.1
4:30-4:45PM 2.1
4:45-5:00PM 1.3
5:00-5:15PM 0.7
5:15-5:30PM 1.0
5:30-5:45PM 1.0
5:45-6:00PM 0.7
Site Peak
2:00-2:15PM 3.0
2:15-2:30PM 3.0
2:30-2:45PM 2.0
2:45-3:00PM 2.0
3:00-3:15PM 3.0
3:15-3:30PM 3.0
3:30-3:45PM 1.0
3:45-4:00PM 2.0
4:00-4:15PM 4.0
4:15-4:30PM 3.0
4:30-4:45PM 3.0
4:45-5:00PM 3.0
5:00-5:15PM 2.0
5:15-5:30PM 3.0
5:30-5:45PM 2.0
5:45-6:00PM 2.0
Site 95th %-ile 1
2:00-2:15PM 3.0
2:15-2:30PM 3.0
2:30-2:45PM 1.5
2:45-3:00PM 2.0
3:00-3:15PM 2.2
3:15-3:30PM 3.0
3:30-3:45PM 1.0
3:45-4:00PM 2.0
4:00-4:15PM 3.3
4:15-4:30PM 2.4
4:30-4:45PM 3.0
4:45-5:00PM 2.6
5:00-5:15PM 1.6
5:15-5:30PM 2.5
5:30-5:45PM 2.0
5:45-6:00PM 1.7
1 95th percentile = The queue will be less than the queue shown 95% of the time.

Car Wash Development Project - 27 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Table 7 - Summary of Drive-Through Queuing
Data Collection - Saturday
Site Average
Time Vehicles
10:00-10:15AM 2.9
10:15-10:30AM 1.1
10:30-10:45AM 1.5
10:45-11:00AM 2.1
11:00-11:15AM 3.8
11:15-11:30AM 1.4
11:30-11:45AM 2.4
11:45-12:00PM 1.9
12:00-12:15PM 1.7
12:15-12:30PM 1.6
12:30-12:45PM 1.8
12:45-1:00PM 4.1
1:00-1:15PM 1.9
1:15-1:30PM 2.6
1:30-1:45PM 3.6
1:45-2:00PM 1.5
Site Peak
10:00-10:15AM 5.0
10:15-10:30AM 3.0
10:30-10:45AM 3.0
10:45-11:00AM 5.0
11:00-11:15AM 6.0
11:15-11:30AM 3.0
11:30-11:45AM 5.0
11:45-12:00PM 3.0
12:00-12:15PM 3.0
12:15-12:30PM 3.0
12:30-12:45PM 4.0
12:45-1:00PM 7.0
1:00-1:15PM 4.0
1:15-1:30PM 5.0
1:30-1:45PM 8.0
1:45-2:00PM 3.0
Site 95th %-ile 1
10:00-10:15AM 4.0
10:15-10:30AM 2.6
10:30-10:45AM 3.0
10:45-11:00AM 5.0
11:00-11:15AM 6.0
11:15-11:30AM 3.0
11:30-11:45AM 4.0
11:45-12:00PM 3.0
12:00-12:15PM 3.0
12:15-12:30PM 3.0
12:30-12:45PM 3.1
12:45-1:00PM 6.0
1:00-1:15PM 3.4
1:15-1:30PM 4.8
1:30-1:45PM 7.0
1:45-2:00PM 3.0
1 95th percentile = The queue will be less than the queue shown 95% of the time.
- 28 -
Car Wash Development Project - 29 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS
Although there are no bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project, pedestrian access is provided via sidewalk on both sides of the roadways surrounding the project area, including Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard. Both signalized study intersections on Long Beach Boulevard possess pedestrian crosswalks with push buttons and signal heads, thereby providing connectivity to existing bus stops along Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard. The proposed project will maintain the existing pedestrian access routes.

Existing morning peak period (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening peak period (4:00 to 6:00 PM) pedestrian and bicycle volumes were collected at the study intersections. These counts were completed in February, 2021.

Peak hour pedestrian and bicycle counts are provided in Appendix B . As traffic patterns have been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and students of Dooley Elementary School (immediately north of the project) have transitioned to distance-learning, pedestrian volumes for the school were developed by applying an appropriate factor to the total student population.

Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that approximately 10% or less of students walk or bike to school on an average school morning in most (61.5%) schools. There were a total of 1,001 students enrolled at Dooley Elementary School in the 2018-2019 school year, as published by the Nation Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Therefore, after applying a 10% factor to the student population of 1,001 students, there are approximately 100 students that walk or bike to school on an average school-day morning.

It is assumed that the distribution of the Dooley Elementary School pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be 25% from each of the north, east, south and west directions. Based on these assumptions, the following student trip assignment information can be considered:
· Most of the 25 students from the north on Long Beach Boulevard would turn west onto 51st Street before the project to get to the main entrance of Dooley Elementary School and would not cross any project driveways;
· however, few (~5) students from the north might continue south toward Del Amo Boulevard and cross all project driveways along Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard; · 25 students from the east would cross both project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard; · 25 students from the south would cross both project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard; · 25 students from the west would turn north before the project and would not cross any project driveways.

In summary, approximately 55 students would cross all project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard, and only few of these students would cross the project driveway along Long Beach Boulevard. In addition, there will be negligible amounts of existing pedestrian-foot traffic and bicycle traffic that would cross the project driveways. Furthermore, the total amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic is not anticipated to significantly affect vehicle delay entering the project site.

Car Wash Development Project - 30 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 Sight Distance Analysis
A sight distance analysis was performed at the project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard to evaluate the visibility from the project driveways for the right-turn movements. The existing intersection control are stop- control at the project driveways and free-flow along Del Amo Boulevard.

The sight distance standard used, Case B2, in this analysis are from the 2018 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Chapter 9 – Intersections (Intersection Sight Distance). Case B2 is used for right turners at a stopped position from a minor street. Table 8 shows the sight distance requirement evaluated for a 35-mph roadway.

Table 8 – Sight Distance Requirements
Case
Passenger Car
45 mph 40 mph 35 mph 30 mph
B2 430 feet 385 feet 335 feet 290 feet
2018 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Chapter 9 – Intersections (Intersection Sight Distance) Drivers wanting to make a southbound right turn from the project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard would need approximately 335 feet of sight distance looking towards the east from Position 1 (driver is 7.5 feet behind the limit line) and Position 2 (driver is 2.5 feet behind the limit line). At Driveway 1 in the existing conditions, permitted on-street parking obstructs the view at both Positions 1 and 2, and the minimum sight distance requirements are not met looking towards the east. A representation of the Existing Intersection Sight Distance is shown on Figure 15. However, the visibility of pedestrians within the sidewalk as drivers approach the driveways is adequate.

The following improvement would improve the sight distance towards the east on Driveway 1 to meet the minimum sight distance requirement of 335 feet:
· Paint curb along the north side of Del Amo Boulevard (south of the project site) red and install “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs along the sidewalk.
- 31 -
LEGEND:= Driver's Eye Position= Sight Line
Car Wash Development Project - 32 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This traffic impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the project-related traffic impacts associated with the proposed car wash development located 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach, California. The project is estimated to generate 738 daily trips, 64 morning peak hour trips, and 74 evening peak hour trips.

Existing traffic volumes were collected in February, 2021. Due to the impacts of COVID-19 on current traffic patterns, historical counts in the area were used to derive a factor to apply to recent counts. Traffic volumes collected in 2018 were increased by 65% in the AM and 25% in the PM to account for the decrease in traffic related to COVID-19.

Factored existing volumes, along with existing lane geometrics and traffic control at each intersection, were used in conducting peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analyses. Under Existing Conditions, the following study intersection currently operates at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Existing Conditions. Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
An ambient growth of 1.5% and cumulative project traffic were added to the Existing scenario to develop the Opening Year 2022 scenario volumes. In the Opening Year 2022 scenario, the following study intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 Conditions. Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
Proposed project trips were added to the Opening Year 2022 traffic volumes to determine the traffic volumes for the Opening Year 2022 With Project scenario. In the Opening Year 2022 With Project scenario, the following study intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (F) in both peak periods:
· #1 – Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue
Car Wash Development Project - 33 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Traffic Impact Analysis March, 2021 The 95th Percentile queue length at the turn bays of the signalized study intersections were analyzed for the Opening Year 2022 With Project Conditions. Results indicate that the queue of the northbound left and southbound left lanes at the following intersection exceed the capacity of the turn bay:
· #2 – Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard
This is an existing deficiency and the addition of project trips would not impose a significant impact on the study intersection.

The drive-through capacity would be approximately 220 feet (110 feet per lane) from the opening of the two drive-through lanes to the two transaction kiosks, providing a queuing capacity of 9 to 11 vehicles, assuming 20 to 25 feet per vehicle. Drive-through queuing data collection at a similar site and analysis shows that the typical Peak queue expected at the project site would be 3 to 8 vehicles. The 95th Percentile queue, which is estimated to be 7 vehicles in its worst case, would occur more frequently than the site peak and is within the capacity of the proposed project. These queue lengths are within the capacity provided by the proposed site layout.

Although there are no bike facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project, pedestrian access is provided via sidewalk on both sides of the roadways surrounding the project area, including Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard. Appropriate factoring was applied to the Dooley student population of 1,001 students, to determine that approximately 100 students walk or bike to school on an average school-day morning.

Based on trip distribution assumptions, about 55 students would cross all project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard, and only 5 of these students would cross the project driveway along Long Beach Boulevard.

Existing pedestrian-foot traffic and bicycle traffic is negligible; therefore, the total amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic is not anticipated to significantly affect vehicle delay entering the project site.

A sight distance analysis was performed at the project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard to evaluate the visibility from the project driveways for the right-turn movements. Per sight distance standard Case B2, drivers wanting to make a southbound right turn from the project driveways along Del Amo Boulevard would need approximately 335 feet of sight distance looking towards the east. At Driveway 1, permitted on- street parking obstructs the view at both Positions 1 (driver is 7.5 feet behind the limit line) and 2 (driver is

2.5 feet behind the limit line), and the minimum sight distance requirements are not met.

The recommended improvement to improve the sight distance to meet the standard requirement for Case B2 from Driveway 1 is to paint the curb along the north side of Del Amo Boulevard (south of the project site) red and install “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs along the sidewalk.

Car Wash Development Project - 33 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

The drive-through capacity would be approximately 260 feet (130 feet per lane) from the opening of the two drive-through lanes to the two transaction kiosks, providing a queuing capacity of 10 to 13 vehicles, assuming 20 to 25 feet per vehicle. Drive-through queuing data collection at a similar site and analysis shows that the typical Peak queue expected at the project site would be 3 to 8 vehicles. The 95th Percentile queue, which is estimated to be 7 vehicles in its worst case, would occur more frequently than the site peak and is within the capacity of the proposed project. These queue lengths are within the capacity provided by the proposed site layout.

2.5 feet behind the limit line), and the minimum sight distance requirements are not met.

APPENDIX A

APPROVED SCOPE OF STUDY FORM
January 12, 2021
Alexis Oropeza
Long Beach Development Services
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis Scoping Agreement for the Proposed Development at the Car Wash Project at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard
Dear Ms. Oropeza:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this Scoping Agreement for the proposed car wash development at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach. The scope of the traffic impact analysis is summarized below. This scope of work is based on the review comments and recommendations provided by LSA in their peer review letter dated September 2020, and on the City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (June 2020). The Scoping Agreement for Traffic Impact Analysis form is included in the Appendix.

Project Description
The applicant proposes a development consisting of a 3,058-square-foot automated car wash at an existing gas station with convenience store located at the northwest corner of Del Amo Boulevard and Long Beach Boulevard. The project, in its local setting, is shown on Figure 1. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2.

Study Scenarios
The following study scenarios will be included for analysis:
· Existing Conditions
· Opening Year 2021
· Opening Year 2021 with Project
Study Methodology
Intersection Level of Service calculations will be based on the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Methodology for unsignalized and signalized intersections.

Project Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution assumptions for the Plus Project conditions are shown onFigure 3.

Background Traffic
The project is anticipated to be open in 2021. Existing traffic volumes will be grown at a rate of 1.5% per year to account for ambient growth between Existing and Opening Year scenarios. Additionally,

Page 2 ends

traffic from cumulative projects within a five-mile radius of the proposed site will be included in the Opening Year scenario. A list of these projects will be provided by City of Long Beach staff.

Project Trip Generation
Due to the limited data within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, daily and peak hour trips for the proposed project were determined based on data provided by the applicant for an existing BLISS Car Wash located at 4294 University Parkway in San Bernardino, CA and for an existing BLISS Car Wash located at 600 N Rose Drive in Placentia, CA. Transaction data in 2019 was provided and averaged on a daily basis to indicate the number of vehicles utilizing the car wash facility each hour. Data between these two sites, which are similar in operation to the proposed project, was averaged for trip generation purposes. This information is summarized inTable 1 for the morning and the evening peak hour, with the data sheet attached in the Appendix. The values here reflect site volumes on a Friday, which tends to generate higher volumes than on a typical weekday.

Study Intersections
The following study intersections are proposed:

1. Virginia Avenue/Del Amo Boulevard

2. Long Beach Boulevard/Del Amo Boulevard

3. Long Beach Boulevard/51st Street
Traffic Counts
Peak hour traffic counts at intersections are typically conducted on a weekday during the morning and evening peak periods (7:00AM – 9:00AM, 4:00PM-6:00PM). Data will be collected at each study intersection and will be factored to account for any anomalies resulting from the impacts of Covid-19 on t raffic . T his fac t or will be d et ermined bas ed on a t raffic c ount provided by t he c it y, whic h was conducted in 2018 at the intersection of Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Automated Car Wash 3.058 KSF 738 32 32 64 37 37 74
1 Source: Existing BLISS Car Wash at 4294 University Parkway, San Bernardino CA Existing BLISS Car Wash at 600 N Rose Drive, Placentia, CA

Page 3 ends

Queuing Analysis
Queueing analysis will be conducted to demonstrate that the 95th percentile queue can be contained within the project site without disrupting the flow of traffic along Long Beach Boulevard. Queueing data will be collected at a similar existing BLISS car wash site, between 2PM and 6PM on a Friday and between 10AM and 2PM on a Saturday, to demonstrate peak operating conditions during the week and weekend.

Multimodal Analysis
Bicycle and pedestrian volumes will be obtained on Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard.

Volumes will be derived from historic data from the City, if available, or from counts. Due to the nature of the current Covid-19 situation, the adjacent school will be contacted to obtain information regarding the student population. This information will be used to estimate the number of students walking to school, in the absence of in-person classes during the pandemic.

Additionally, a sight distance analysis will be conducted at the project driveways along Long Beach Boulevard and along Del Amo Boulevard to demonstrate that conflicts would not be present in the proposed design.

Page 4 ends

APPENDIX

LEGEND:Project SiteTrip DistributionPercentageXX%25%25% 25%
25%

CUP 1801-02: Proposed Automated Car Wash
5005 Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach CA
Construction of a new 3,058-square-foot automated car wash facility at an existing gas station with convenient store at the northwest corner of Del Amo Blvd and Long Beach Blvd.
x
x
Historical Data
x
x
25 25
25 25
x

1.5 2021
x

TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF
Virginia Avenue/Del Amo Blvd
Long Beach Boulevard/Del Amo Boulevard
Long Beach Boulevard/51st Street
x
64 32
32 37
37 74
738
369
369
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
765 The City Drive, Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868
714-939-1030
[email protected]
A & S Engineering
28405 Sand Canyon Road, Suite B
Canyon Country, CA 91387
661-250-9300
[email protected]
1/12/20
Hour of E..

Event Date Time
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 Grand To..
348
22 24
30 31
34 36
40 39
33 33
27 13
309
27 30
31 31
26 27
29 24
24 26
22 16
237
23 25
24 23
22 23
21 20
19 18
18 12
226
24 23
26 21
19 21
21 20
17 20
18 11
233
21 26
23 21
20 21
21 19
18 19
17 10
268
21 25
25 25
24 24
26 22
21 21
17 16
311
20 23
29 29
30 31
33 33
30 27
18 12
Single Wash Avg Hourly Volume: San Bernadino June-December 2019 Avg Daily Vol broken down by Event Date Time Weekday vs. Event Date Time Hour. The data is ﬁltered on Site, EventDate Year and EventDate Month. The Site ﬁlter keeps San Bernadino. The EventDate Year ﬁlter keeps 2019. The EventDate Month ﬁlter excludes January, February, March, April and May. The view is ﬁltered on Event Date Time Hour, which keeps 12 members.

Bliss Placentia For the Day For the Day For the Day For the Day 7/5/2019 7/12/2019 7/19/2019 7/26/2019
Hourly
Washes
Hourly
Washes
Hourly
Washes
Hourly
Washes
Washes by Hour
7 AM Wash Count 8 18 17 33 19
8 AM Wash Count 18 20 28 43 27
9 AM Wash Count 29 36 36 51 38
10 AM Wash Count 37 23 34 50 36
11 AM Wash Count 40 31 31 52 39
12 PM Wash Count 39 26 37 45 37
1 PM Wash Count 40 28 25 53 37
2 PM Wash Count 36 29 35 50 38
3 PM Wash Count 36 37 31 47 38
4 PM Wash Count 45 35 35 53 42
5 PM Wash Count 36 31 40 54 40
6 PM Wash Count 16 48 44 48 39
TOTAL 380 362 393 579 429
Average
1 From: Alexis Oropeza <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:11 AM
To: Chan, Tim
Subject: FW: 5005 Long Beach Blvd. (Car Wash)
Attachments: Scoping Agreement Form - January 2021.pdf
Hi Tim,
The parameters outlined in the revised scope dated January 12th and attached to this email is accepted.

Sincerely,
Alexis Oropeza
Current Planning Officer
Long Beach Development Services I Planning Bureau
T 562.570.6413 F 562.570.6068
411 West Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor I Long Beach, C A 90802 [email protected] I www.lbds.info

APPENDIX B

TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION
SHEETS
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Virginia Ave & Del Amo Blvd
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-001
Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 99 2 1 0 254 0 0 365
7:15 AM 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 128 3 1 0 269 3 0 409
7:30 AM 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 142 1 0 0 308 1 0 457
7:45 AM 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 164 3 0 0 310 0 1 486
8:00 AM 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 163 2 1 2 239 0 2 417
8:15 AM 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 1 0 0 229 0 2 394
8:30 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 178 0 1 1 207 0 2 394
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 174 3 1 0 205 1 0 386

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 15 1 11 0 2 1 8 1 7 1206 15 5 3 2021 5 7 3308 APPROACH %'s : 55.56% 3.70% 40.74% 0.00% 16.67% 8.33% 66.67% 8.33% 0.57% 97.81% 1.22% 0.41% 0.15% 99.26% 0.25% 0.34% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 7 1 7 0 2 1 2 0 6 597 9 2 2 1126 4 3 1769 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.583 0.250 0.438 0.000 0.500 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.500 0.910 0.750 0.500 0.250 0.908 0.333 0.375 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 385 2 1 1 204 2 3 608
4:15 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 392 2 0 4 243 2 2 652
4:30 PM 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 402 2 3 1 234 2 2 656
4:45 PM 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 456 4 1 1 225 2 2 698
5:00 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 438 7 0 7 223 2 2 687
5:15 PM 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 4 447 2 1 1 203 4 1 672
5:30 PM 3 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 389 2 2 2 241 3 0 648
5:45 PM 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 440 2 0 0 188 1 0 638

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 10 0 38 0 0 0 9 0 14 3349 23 8 17 1761 18 12 5259 APPROACH %'s : 20.83% 0.00% 79.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.41% 98.67% 0.68% 0.24% 0.94% 97.40% 1.00% 0.66% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 289 296 04:45 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 5 0 18 0 0 0 6 0 9 1743 15 5 10 885 10 7 2713 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.625 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.563 0.956 0.536 0.417 0.357 0.946 0.625 0.875

EASTBOUND
2/9/2021
Del Amo Blvd

NORTHBOUND
Del Amo Blvd

0.912

WESTBOUND
Virginia Ave Virginia Ave

0.625 0.903

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.750 0.910
Total

0.9720.957

WESTBOUND

0.954

SOUTHBOUND

0.719 0.500
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

SOUTHBOUND
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Virginia Ave & Del Amo Blvd
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-001
Control: 2-Way Stop(NB/SB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 4

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 0 0 13
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 38 37 44 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 7
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
4:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 16
APPROACH %'s : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 10.00% 90.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 10
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.25 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 2/9/2021
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM

0.5000.250 0.250 0.500 0.500
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

0.438

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.375 0.500

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Bikes
Virginia Ave Virginia Ave Del Amo Blvd Del Amo Blvd
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Virginia Ave & Del Amo Blvd Project ID: 21-020034-001 City: Long Beach Date: 2/9/2021
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 9
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
7:45 AM 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
8:00 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
8:15 AM 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
8:30 AM 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
8:45 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 5 11 4 2 1 1 1 0 25
APPROACH %'s : 31.25% 68.75% 66.67% 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM 37 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 5 0 2 1 1 1 0 14
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.333 0.417 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 5
4:45 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:30 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 5 2 3 5 1 0 0 0 16
APPROACH %'s : 71.43% 28.57% 37.50% 62.50% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:30 PM 288 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 11
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.375
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Virginia Ave Virginia Ave Del Amo Blvd

0.3890.375 0.500 0.500 0.250
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.5500.750 0.417
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM
Del Amo Blvd
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & Del Amo Blvd
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-002
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 31 45 3 0 11 86 22 0 19 65 14 0 11 185 13 0 505 7:15 AM 44 61 7 0 10 110 46 0 27 76 24 0 12 176 13 0 606 7:30 AM 46 74 7 0 18 127 37 0 14 79 42 0 22 213 22 0 701 7:45 AM 55 63 4 0 13 171 52 0 23 98 38 0 20 205 19 1 762 8:00 AM 34 51 12 0 17 138 36 0 31 108 37 0 25 173 18 0 680 8:15 AM 31 71 11 0 20 165 37 0 23 81 41 2 21 160 18 0 681 8:30 AM 42 69 19 0 17 132 29 0 18 117 53 0 14 136 22 0 668 8:45 AM 35 65 19 0 21 140 35 0 23 109 39 0 22 139 15 0 662

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 318 499 82 0 127 1069 294 0 178 733 288 2 147 1387 140 1 5265 APPROACH %'s : 35.37% 55.51% 9.12% 0.00% 8.52% 71.74% 19.73% 0.00% 14.82% 61.03% 23.98% 0.17% 8.78% 82.81% 8.36% 0.06% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 166 259 34 0 68 601 162 0 91 366 158 2 88 751 77 1 2824 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.755 0.875 0.708 0.000 0.850 0.879 0.779 0.000 0.734 0.847 0.940 0.250 0.880 0.881 0.875 0.250 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 44 158 35 0 24 141 29 0 48 268 64 0 23 129 38 0 1001 4:15 PM 57 151 29 0 42 135 34 0 40 324 65 0 18 159 33 0 1087 4:30 PM 58 157 27 0 30 144 35 0 52 269 71 0 42 150 35 0 1070 4:45 PM 52 175 31 0 29 138 22 0 55 323 79 0 28 140 30 0 1102 5:00 PM 59 165 28 0 33 143 28 0 56 305 65 0 29 140 28 1 1080 5:15 PM 44 160 21 0 41 143 19 0 37 336 76 0 28 143 38 0 1086 5:30 PM 63 182 42 0 36 143 26 0 65 285 51 1 25 149 33 0 1101 5:45 PM 38 105 32 0 47 134 25 0 51 328 59 2 20 130 37 0 1008

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 415 1253 245 0 282 1121 218 0 404 2438 530 3 213 1140 272 1 8535 APPROACH %'s : 21.69% 65.50% 12.81% 0.00% 17.40% 69.15% 13.45% 0.00% 11.97% 72.24% 15.70% 0.09% 13.10% 70.11% 16.73% 0.06% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 04:45 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 218 682 122 0 139 567 95 0 213 1249 271 1 110 572 129 1 4369 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.865 0.937 0.726 0.000 0.848 0.991 0.848 0.000 0.819 0.929 0.858 0.250 0.948 0.960 0.849 0.250

EASTBOUND
2/9/2021
Del Amo Blvd

NORTHBOUND
Del Amo Blvd

0.892

WESTBOUND
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd

0.880 0.876

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.904 0.927
Total

0.9910.949

WESTBOUND

0.971

SOUTHBOUND

0.890 0.977
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

SOUTHBOUND
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & Del Amo Blvd
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-002
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 6
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 5 0 0 15
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 37 44 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 8
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:30 PM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
4:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 6
5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 10 0 0 1 5 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 26
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 71.43% 14.29% 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 5 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 15
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.00 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 2/9/2021
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.6250.625 0.500 0.625 0.250
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.3330.250

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.250 0.250 0.375

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Bikes
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd Del Amo Blvd Del Amo Blvd Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & Del Amo Blvd Project ID: 21-020034-002 City: Long Beach Date: 2/9/2021
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 5
7:15 AM 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 11
7:30 AM 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 7
7:45 AM 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 8
8:00 AM 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5
8:15 AM 0 5 0 1 1 2 0 3 12
8:30 AM 0 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 12
8:45 AM 0 0 3 3 1 5 2 2 16

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 8 13 6 9 5 14 11 10 76
APPROACH %'s : 38.10% 61.90% 40.00% 60.00% 26.32% 73.68% 52.38% 47.62% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 38 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 2 8 1 4 3 7 3 4 32
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.400 0.250 0.333 0.750 0.583 0.250 0.333 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 1 10
4:15 PM 0 1 2 3 0 4 0 2 12
4:30 PM 3 0 2 0 3 4 3 0 15
4:45 PM 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 10
5:00 PM 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 5 11
5:15 PM 2 0 3 3 2 3 3 0 16
5:30 PM 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 5 15
5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 4

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 11 9 12 7 12 15 10 17 93
APPROACH %'s : 55.00% 45.00% 63.16% 36.84% 44.44% 55.56% 37.04% 62.96% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 7 6 5 3 5 7 6 13 52
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.875 0.500 0.417 0.250 0.625 0.583 0.500 0.650 AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd Del Amo Blvd

0.6670.500 0.417 0.625 0.583
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.8130.650 0.333 0.600 0.792
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Del Amo Blvd
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & W 51st St
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-003
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1 74 0 0 0 127 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206
7:15 AM 1 97 0 0 0 171 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 276
7:30 AM 5 102 0 0 0 176 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 289
7:45 AM 4 107 0 2 0 245 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 365
8:00 AM 3 91 0 0 0 187 1 1 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 291
8:15 AM 1 104 0 0 0 219 3 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 336
8:30 AM 1 109 0 0 0 177 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 294
8:45 AM 3 97 0 1 0 195 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 305

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 19 781 0 3 0 1497 19 1 18 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 2362 APPROACH %'s : 2.37% 97.26% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 98.68% 1.25% 0.07% 42.86% 0.00% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 9 411 0 2 0 828 9 1 10 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 1286 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.563 0.943 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.845 0.563 0.250 0.833 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 11 222 0 1 0 211 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 454
4:15 PM 7 229 0 1 0 226 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 468
4:30 PM 2 236 0 0 0 213 6 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 466
4:45 PM 5 263 0 1 0 203 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 478
5:00 PM 6 224 0 1 0 184 3 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 425
5:15 PM 6 246 0 1 0 227 4 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 491
5:30 PM 8 263 0 2 0 215 3 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 503
5:45 PM 7 207 0 0 0 204 2 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 428

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 52 1890 0 7 0 1683 26 2 25 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 3713 APPROACH %'s : 2.67% 96.97% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00% 98.36% 1.52% 0.12% 47.17% 0.00% 52.83% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 05:30 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 25 996 0 5 0 829 13 2 13 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1897 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.781 0.947 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.913 0.813 0.250 0.464 0.000 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

EASTBOUND
2/9/2021
W 51st St

NORTHBOUND
W 51st St

WESTBOUND
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd

0.841 0.722

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.934 0.881
Total

0.9430.563

WESTBOUND

SOUTHBOUND

0.940 0.913
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

SOUTHBOUND
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & W 51st St
City: Long Beach Project ID: 21-020034-003
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5:00 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
5:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 11 0 0 0 6 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 8 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.00 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2/9/2021
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.5830.500 0.500
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

0.5000.250

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.250

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Bikes
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd W 51st St W 51st St
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Long Beach Blvd & W 51st St Project ID: 21-020034-003 City: Long Beach Date: 2/9/2021
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7
7:15 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 5
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 7
8:00 AM 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 5 7 0 0 0 0 5 9 26
APPROACH %'s : 41.67% 58.33% 35.71% 64.29%
PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 39 36 43 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 12
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.500 0.313
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4
4:45 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 8
5:00 PM 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 8
5:15 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
5:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 5 4 0 0 0 0 9 9 27
APPROACH %'s : 55.56% 44.44% 50.00% 50.00%
PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 289 286 293 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 4 4 0 0 0 0 6 5 19
PEAK HR FACTOR : 1.000 0.333 0.375 0.417
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd W 51st St

0.4290.583 0.313
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.5940.500 0.458
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
W 51st St
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation: Long Beach Blvd & Del Amo Blvd City: Long Beach Project ID: 18-05307-028
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 44 97 13 0 15 115 53 0 23 108 25 2 16 351 40 0 902 7:15 AM 61 93 7 0 16 148 61 0 31 117 39 1 29 355 29 0 987 7:30 AM 55 96 10 0 30 148 59 0 29 142 41 1 16 424 25 0 1076 7:45 AM 72 121 14 0 25 185 77 0 33 121 43 1 36 342 21 0 1091 8:00 AM 54 102 8 0 19 148 63 0 49 174 66 1 34 390 24 0 1132 8:15 AM 70 119 14 0 29 171 52 0 25 146 58 1 22 354 34 0 1095 8:30 AM 79 103 18 0 38 154 33 0 24 207 58 3 43 319 23 0 1102 8:45 AM 63 107 12 0 28 146 46 0 44 153 70 3 23 329 20 0 1044

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 498 838 96 0 200 1215 444 0 258 1168 400 13 219 2864 216 0 8429 APPROACH %'s : 34.78% 58.52% 6.70% 0.00% 10.76% 65.36% 23.88% 0.00% 14.03% 63.51% 21.75% 0.71% 6.64% 86.81% 6.55% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 37 44 08:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 275 445 54 0 111 658 225 0 131 648 225 6 135 1405 102 0 4420 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.870 0.919 0.750 0.000 0.730 0.889 0.731 0.000 0.668 0.783 0.852 0.500 0.785 0.901 0.750 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 3 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 45 132 23 0 45 131 30 0 71 393 85 0 15 159 36 0 1165 4:15 PM 49 166 24 0 42 136 31 0 54 358 81 0 38 175 39 1 1194 4:30 PM 44 142 24 0 53 157 29 0 66 412 89 0 27 159 27 1 1230 4:45 PM 45 158 32 0 32 163 36 0 59 364 86 2 41 185 34 0 1237 5:00 PM 52 165 20 0 40 173 31 0 66 417 91 0 29 149 36 0 1269 5:15 PM 50 205 25 0 47 154 28 0 72 401 75 1 41 188 26 0 1313 5:30 PM 58 184 28 0 46 140 31 0 55 433 79 1 30 172 35 0 1292 5:45 PM 50 180 30 0 42 145 31 0 52 389 84 0 31 222 33 0 1289

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 393 1332 206 0 347 1199 247 0 495 3167 670 4 252 1409 266 2 9989 APPROACH %'s : 20.35% 68.98% 10.67% 0.00% 19.35% 66.87% 13.78% 0.00% 11.42% 73.04% 15.45% 0.09% 13.06% 73.04% 13.79% 0.10% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 293 289 296 05:15 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 210 734 103 0 175 612 121 0 245 1640 329 2 131 731 130 0 5163 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.905 0.895 0.858 0.000 0.931 0.884 0.976 0.000 0.851 0.947 0.904 0.500 0.799 0.823 0.903 0.000 Del Amo Blvd

NORTHBOUND
Del Amo Blvd

0.916

WESTBOUND
Long Beach Blvd Long Beach Blvd

SOUTHBOUND

0.866 0.865

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.935
5/23/2018
Total

0.9830.965

WESTBOUND

0.867

0.976

SOUTHBOUND

0.935 0.930
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Car Wash Development Project
Historical 2018 Count Sheet
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C

SUPPLEMENTAL TRIP GENERATION

INFORMATION
Hour of E..

APPENDIX D

CUMULATIVE PROJECT

INFORMATION

TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC
AM Peak Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Virginia Avenue at Del Amo Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 2 Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard 1 2 0 0 12 5 2 2 4 0 3 0 3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st Street 0 2 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
1 Virginia Avenue at Del Amo Boulevard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 2 Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard 4 12 0 0 2 4 5 7 2 0 6 0 3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st Street 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Enter only in blue cells
Int. #: 1
Mirror distribution? Y Entire Intersection TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Mirror distribution? AM In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
AM Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0
AM Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 9 0
PM In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
PM Out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0
PM Tot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0
Zone # 1 North Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%
AM Out AM Out 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% PM In 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% PM Out 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Zone # 2 5100 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 50% AM In 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0%
AM Out AM Out 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% PM Out 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Zone # 3 4800 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 4 4251 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% AM In 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% PM Out 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Virginia Avenue at Del Amo Boulevard
Yellow cells calculate
Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Int. #: 1 Virginia Avenue at Del Amo Boulevard
Zone # 5 Southwest Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 6 South Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Enter only in blue cells
Int. #: 2

Y TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM In 0 0 0 0 12 0 2 2 4 0 0 0
AM Out 1 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0
AM Tot 1 2 0 0 12 5 2 2 4 0 3 0
PM In 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 7 2 0 0 0
PM Out 4 12 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0
PM Tot 4 12 0 0 2 4 5 7 2 0 6 0
Zone # 1 North Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%
AM Out AM Out 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% PM In 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% PM Out 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Zone # 2 5100 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 50% AM In 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 3 4800 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 4 4251 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 20% AM In 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Y 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% PM In 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 PM Out 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 5 Southwest Zone
Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard
Yellow cells calculate
Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Int. #: 2 Long Beach Boulevard at Del Amo Boulevard
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 6 South Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 119 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 22 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 116 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Int. #: 3

Y TOTAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRAFFIC
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM In 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM Out 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AM Tot 0 2 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM Out 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM Tot 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zone # 1 North Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 2 5100 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 3 4800 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 4 4251 Long Beach Blvd
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 5 Southwest Zone
Long Beach Boulevard at 51st Street
Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Int. #: 3 Long Beach Boulevard at 51st Street
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In AM In 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone # 6 South Zone
Pk Hr NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR Pk Hr T Gen NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR AM In 10% AM In 119 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AM Out AM Out 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PM In 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM In 22 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Out 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PM Out 116 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Car Wash Development Project
Traffic Impact Analysis
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX E

INTERSECTION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS
HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 985 15 8 1858 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 13 985 15 8 1858 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 1071 16 9 2020 8 13 2 13 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 2028 0 0 1087 0 0 1934 3153 544 2495 3153 1010 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1107 1107 - 2038 2038 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 827 2046 - 457 1115 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 121 - - 355 - - 70 11 414 31 11 204
Stage 1 - - - - - - 168 284 - 36 99 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 301 98 - 505 282 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 121 - - 355 - - 50 9 414 22 9 204
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 50 9 - 22 9 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 149 251 - 32 97 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 282 96 - 429 249 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.1 133.2 266.7

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 53 121 - - 355 - - 21
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.533 0.117 - - 0.024 - - 0.414
HCM Control Delay (s) 133.2 38.6 - - 15.4 - - 266.7
HCM Lane LOS F E - - C - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 0.4 - - 0.1 - - 1.2
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 153 604 261 147 1239 127 274 427 56 112 992 267 Future Volume (veh/h) 153 604 261 147 1239 127 274 427 56 112 992 267 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 166 657 284 160 1347 138 298 464 61 122 1078 290 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 198 1397 434 215 1422 441 319 1523 679 149 1185 528 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 657 284 160 1347 138 298 464 61 122 1078 290 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 12.7 18.8 5.4 30.6 8.2 19.5 10.2 2.7 8.0 34.4 17.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 12.7 18.8 5.4 30.6 8.2 19.5 10.2 2.7 8.0 34.4 17.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 1397 434 215 1422 441 319 1523 679 149 1185 528 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.47 0.65 0.74 0.95 0.31 0.94 0.30 0.09 0.82 0.91 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 198 1397 434 233 1422 441 319 1523 679 238 1230 548 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.3 35.9 38.1 54.6 41.9 33.8 48.0 22.3 20.1 53.4 37.8 32.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.7 1.1 7.5 11.2 14.2 1.8 33.9 0.1 0.1 11.3 10.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 5.3 8.1 2.6 14.3 3.3 11.5 4.2 1.0 4.0 16.2 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 81.0 37.0 45.6 65.8 56.1 35.6 81.8 22.4 20.2 64.7 47.8 33.3 LnGrp LOS F D D E E D F C C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1107 1645 823 1490
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 55.3 43.7 46.3
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 36.9 25.7 44.0 11.3 37.5 14.4 55.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 31.8 21.2 41.0 6.8 33.0 15.8 46.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 20.8 21.5 36.4 7.6 32.6 10.0 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 3.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.7
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 678 1366 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 678 1366 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 28 20 737 1485 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 43 352 2912 2951 32
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 636 989 350 3647 3695 39
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 0 20 737 732 769
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1661 0 350 1777 1777 1863
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 1.2 3.1 8.3 8.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 9.6 3.1 8.3 8.3
Prop In Lane 0.38 0.60 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 0 352 2912 1456 1527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.25 0.50 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 684 0 352 2912 1456 1527
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.9 0.0 3.3 1.4 1.8 1.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 0.0 3.6 1.6 2.1 2.1
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 47 757 1501
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 1.6 2.1
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.4 7.4 58.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.9 27.1 53.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.6 3.8 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.6 0.1 15.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 2179 19 21 1106 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Future Vol, veh/h 18 2179 19 21 1106 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 2368 21 23 1202 14 7 0 25 0 0 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1216 0 0 2389 0 0 2946 3681 1195 2235 3677 601 Stage 1 - - - - - - 2419 2419 - 1248 1248 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 527 1262 - 987 2429 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 307 - - 79 - - 16 5 153 45 5 380
Stage 1 - - - - - - 19 63 - 133 243 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 459 239 - 240 62 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 307 - - 79 - - 12 3 153 28 3 380
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 12 3 - 28 3 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 18 59 - 124 172 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 318 169 - 188 58 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 1.3 190.1 14.7

HCM LOS F B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 45 307 - - 79 - - 380
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.7 0.064 - - 0.289 - - 0.023
HCM Control Delay (s) 190.1 17.5 - - 68.1 - - 14.7
HCM Lane LOS F C - - F - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.7 0.2 - - 1.1 - - 0.1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 268 1561 339 139 715 161 273 853 153 174 709 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 268 1561 339 139 715 161 273 853 153 174 709 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 291 1697 368 151 777 175 297 927 166 189 771 129 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 301 1778 552 174 1590 494 286 1113 496 220 982 438 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.16 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 291 1697 368 151 777 175 297 927 166 189 771 129 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 35.4 21.5 4.7 13.5 9.3 17.5 26.5 8.8 11.4 21.9 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 35.4 21.5 4.7 13.5 9.3 17.5 26.5 8.8 11.4 21.9 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 301 1778 552 174 1590 494 286 1113 496 220 982 438 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.95 0.67 0.87 0.49 0.35 1.04 0.83 0.33 0.86 0.79 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 301 1778 552 174 1590 494 286 1361 607 273 1335 595 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.7 34.7 30.2 51.5 30.5 29.1 45.8 34.8 28.8 46.9 36.5 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 43.0 13.0 6.3 34.0 1.1 2.0 64.0 3.8 0.4 19.9 2.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 16.0 8.9 2.8 5.5 3.8 12.7 11.7 3.3 6.2 9.6 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.6 47.8 36.5 85.5 31.6 31.1 109.9 38.7 29.1 66.8 38.7 31.5 LnGrp LOS F D D F C C F D C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2356 1103 1390 1089
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 38.9 52.7 42.7
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 42.5 22.0 34.7 14.0 38.5 18.0 38.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 38.0 17.5 41.0 9.5 34.0 16.7 41.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 37.4 19.5 23.9 11.2 15.5 13.4 28.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.5 0.2 5.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.9
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 18 38 1245 1036 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 16 18 38 1245 1036 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 20 41 1353 1126 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 29 34 476 2930 2954 45
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 749 881 492 3647 3677 54
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 41 1353 558 585
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1674 0 492 1777 1777 1861
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 1.5 7.1 5.3 5.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 6.8 7.1 5.3 5.3
Prop In Lane 0.45 0.53 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 0 476 2930 1465 1534
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.46 0.38 0.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 690 0 476 2930 1465 1534
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh31.0 0.0 2.3 1.6 1.5 1.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 0.0 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.6
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 38 1394 1143
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.6 2.2 1.6
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.5 7.0 58.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.0 27.0 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 3.5 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 15.8 0.1 10.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 1008 15 8 1895 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 13 1008 15 8 1895 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 1096 16 9 2060 8 13 2 13 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 2068 0 0 1112 0 0 1975 3218 556 2545 3218 1030 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1132 1132 - 2078 2078 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 843 2086 - 467 1140 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 115 - - 345 - - 66 10 406 29 10 198
Stage 1 - - - - - - 161 276 - 34 94 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 294 93 - 499 274 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 115 - - 345 - - 47 9 406 20 9 198
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 47 9 - 20 9 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 141 242 - 30 92 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 275 91 - 420 241 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.1 141.6 266.7

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 51 115 - - 345 - - 21
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.554 0.123 - - 0.025 - - 0.414
HCM Control Delay (s) 141.6 40.6 - - 15.7 - - 266.7
HCM Lane LOS F E - - C - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.1 0.4 - - 0.1 - - 1.2
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 615 269 149 1261 129 279 435 57 114 1019 276 Future Volume (veh/h) 157 615 269 149 1261 129 279 435 57 114 1019 276 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 171 668 292 162 1371 140 303 473 62 124 1108 300 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 151 1196 534 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 171 668 292 162 1371 140 303 473 62 124 1108 300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 12.9 19.3 5.5 31.3 8.3 20.2 10.5 2.8 8.2 35.8 18.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 12.9 19.3 5.5 31.3 8.3 20.2 10.5 2.8 8.2 35.8 18.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 151 1196 534 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.46 0.65 0.82 0.95 0.31 0.99 0.31 0.09 0.82 0.93 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 238 1223 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.8 35.2 37.5 55.5 41.8 33.5 49.2 22.8 20.6 53.6 38.1 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 33.8 1.1 7.2 23.3 13.9 1.8 48.0 0.1 0.1 11.8 11.9 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 5.4 8.3 3.0 14.6 3.4 13.0 4.4 1.0 4.1 17.1 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.6 36.3 44.7 78.9 55.6 35.3 97.2 22.9 20.6 65.4 49.9 33.6 LnGrp LOS F D D E E D F C C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1131 1673 838 1532
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.5 56.2 49.6 48.0
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 38.2 25.0 44.6 11.2 38.3 14.6 55.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 33.7 20.5 41.0 6.7 33.8 15.9 45.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 21.3 22.2 37.8 7.9 33.3 10.2 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.6
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 690 1398 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 690 1398 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 28 20 750 1520 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 43 342 2912 2952 31
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 636 989 338 3647 3696 38
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 0 20 750 749 787
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1661 0 338 1777 1777 1864
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 1.3 3.2 8.7 8.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 10.0 3.2 8.7 8.7
Prop In Lane 0.38 0.60 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 0 342 2912 1456 1527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.51 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 684 0 342 2912 1456 1527
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.9 0.0 3.4 1.4 1.9 1.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 0.0 3.7 1.6 2.2 2.2
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 47 770 1536
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 1.6 2.2
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.4 7.4 58.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.9 27.1 53.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 3.8 10.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.8 0.1 16.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 2226 19 21 1137 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Future Vol, veh/h 18 2226 19 21 1137 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 2420 21 23 1236 14 7 0 25 0 0 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1250 0 0 2441 0 0 3011 3767 1221 2290 3763 618 Stage 1 - - - - - - 2471 2471 - 1282 1282 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 540 1296 - 1008 2481 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 296 - - 74 - - 14 4 147 42 4 370
Stage 1 - - - - - - 17 59 - 126 234 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 450 231 - 232 58 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 296 - - 74 - - 10 3 147 25 3 370
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 10 3 - 25 3 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 16 55 - 117 161 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 303 159 - 180 54 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 1.3 253.3 15

HCM LOS F C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 38 296 - - 74 - - 370
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.83 0.066 - - 0.308 - - 0.024
HCM Control Delay (s) 253.3 18 - - 74 - - 15
HCM Lane LOS F C - - F - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.1 0.2 - - 1.1 - - 0.1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 277 1591 346 141 732 163 281 878 155 177 722 125 Future Volume (veh/h) 277 1591 346 141 732 163 281 878 155 177 722 125 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 301 1729 376 153 796 177 305 954 168 192 785 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 329 1757 545 172 1526 474 282 1131 504 222 1012 451 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 301 1729 376 153 796 177 305 954 168 192 785 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 37.1 22.5 4.9 14.3 9.7 17.5 27.6 8.9 11.7 22.4 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 37.1 22.5 4.9 14.3 9.7 17.5 27.6 8.9 11.7 22.4 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 329 1757 545 172 1526 474 282 1131 504 222 1012 451 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.98 0.69 0.89 0.52 0.37 1.08 0.84 0.33 0.86 0.78 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 329 1757 545 172 1526 474 282 1339 597 273 1319 588 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 35.9 31.1 52.2 32.2 30.6 46.5 35.1 28.7 47.4 36.3 30.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 29.3 18.0 7.0 38.9 1.3 2.3 76.7 4.4 0.4 20.5 2.2 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 17.5 9.4 3.0 5.9 4.0 13.6 12.3 3.4 6.4 9.8 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.8 54.0 38.1 91.1 33.4 32.8 123.2 39.5 29.1 67.9 38.5 31.3 LnGrp LOS E D D F C C F D C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2406 1126 1427 1113
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.6 41.2 56.2 42.7
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 42.5 22.0 35.9 15.0 37.5 18.3 39.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 38.0 17.5 41.0 10.5 33.0 16.9 41.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 39.1 19.5 24.4 11.5 16.3 13.7 29.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.4 0.2 5.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.3
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 18 39 1276 1054 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 16 18 39 1276 1054 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 20 42 1387 1146 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 29 34 468 2930 2955 44
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 749 881 483 3647 3678 53
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 42 1387 568 595
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1674 0 483 1777 1777 1861
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 1.6 7.4 5.4 5.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 7.0 7.4 5.4 5.4
Prop In Lane 0.45 0.53 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 0 468 2930 1465 1534
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.47 0.39 0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 690 0 468 2930 1465 1534
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh31.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 0.0 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.6
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 38 1429 1163
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.6 2.2 1.6
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.5 7.0 58.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.0 27.0 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 3.5 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 16.4 0.1 10.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 1016 15 32 1903 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 13 1016 15 32 1903 7 12 2 12 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 1104 16 35 2068 8 13 2 13 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 2076 0 0 1120 0 0 2038 3286 560 2609 3286 1034 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1140 1140 - 2138 2138 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 898 2146 - 471 1148 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 114 - - 342 - - 60 9 404 26 9 197
Stage 1 - - - - - - 159 274 - 30 88 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 272 87 - 496 272 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 114 - - 342 - - 38 7 404 16 7 197
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 38 7 - 16 7 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 139 240 - 26 79 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 234 78 - 417 239 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.3 202.1 $ 383.4

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 41 114 - - 342 - - 16
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.689 0.124 - - 0.102 - - 0.543
HCM Control Delay (s) 202.1 41 - - 16.7 - - $ 383.4
HCM Lane LOS F E - - C - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.6 0.4 - - 0.3 - - 1.4
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 173 623 277 149 1269 129 287 435 57 114 1019 276 Future Volume (veh/h) 173 623 277 149 1269 129 287 435 57 114 1019 276 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 677 301 162 1379 140 312 473 62 124 1108 300 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 151 1196 534 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 188 677 301 162 1379 140 312 473 62 124 1108 300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 13.1 20.0 5.5 31.6 8.3 20.5 10.5 2.8 8.2 35.8 18.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 13.1 20.0 5.5 31.6 8.3 20.5 10.5 2.8 8.2 35.8 18.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 151 1196 534 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.47 0.67 0.82 0.95 0.31 1.02 0.31 0.09 0.82 0.93 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1445 449 197 1449 450 307 1506 672 238 1223 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.1 35.3 37.8 55.5 41.8 33.5 49.3 22.8 20.6 53.6 38.1 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 54.8 1.1 7.8 23.3 14.6 1.8 55.9 0.1 0.1 11.8 11.9 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 5.4 8.6 3.0 14.8 3.4 13.8 4.4 1.0 4.1 17.1 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 110.9 36.4 45.6 78.9 56.4 35.3 105.2 22.9 20.6 65.4 49.9 33.6 LnGrp LOS F D D E E D F C C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1166 1681 847 1532
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.8 56.8 53.1 48.0
Approach LOS D E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 38.2 25.0 44.6 11.2 38.3 14.6 55.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 33.7 20.5 41.0 6.7 33.8 15.9 45.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 22.0 22.5 37.8 8.5 33.6 10.2 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.3
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 698 1406 15
Future Volume (veh/h) 17 26 18 698 1406 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 28 20 759 1528 16
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 43 340 2912 2952 31
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 636 989 335 3647 3696 38
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 0 20 759 753 791
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1661 0 335 1777 1777 1864
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 1.3 3.2 8.7 8.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 10.1 3.2 8.7 8.8
Prop In Lane 0.38 0.60 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 73 0 340 2912 1456 1527
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.52 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 684 0 340 2912 1456 1527
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh30.9 0.0 3.4 1.4 1.9 1.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 0.0 3.8 1.6 2.2 2.2
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 47 779 1544
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.2 1.6 2.2
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.4 7.4 58.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.9 27.1 53.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1 3.8 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.9 0.1 16.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 6th TWSC
1: Del Amo Blvd & Virginia Ave
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 7.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 2235 19 49 1146 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Future Vol, veh/h 18 2235 19 49 1146 13 6 0 23 0 0 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 80 - - 95 - 40 - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 20 2429 21 53 1246 14 7 0 25 0 0 9
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1260 0 0 2450 0 0 3084 3846 1225 2364 3842 623 Stage 1 - - - - - - 2480 2480 - 1352 1352 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 604 1366 - 1012 2490 -
Critical Hdwy 5.34 - - 5.34 - - 6.44 6.54 7.14 6.44 6.54 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.34 5.54 - 7.34 5.54 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.74 5.54 - 6.74 5.54 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.12 - - 3.12 - - 3.82 4.02 3.92 3.82 4.02 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 293 - - 73 - - 13 4 146 37 4 368
Stage 1 - - - - - - 17 58 - 113 217 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 412 213 - 231 58 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 293 - - 73 - - ~ 5 1 146 12 1 368
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - ~ 5 1 - 12 1 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 16 54 - 105 59 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 110 58 - 178 54 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 5.5 $ 647.6 15

HCM LOS F C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 21 293 - - 73 - - 368
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.501 0.067 - - 0.73 - - 0.024
HCM Control Delay (s) $ 647.6 18.2 - - 134.5 - - 15
HCM Lane LOS F C - - F - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 4.2 0.2 - - 3.4 - - 0.1
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 296 1600 355 141 741 163 290 878 155 177 722 125 Future Volume (veh/h) 296 1600 355 141 741 163 290 878 155 177 722 125 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 322 1739 386 153 805 177 315 954 168 192 785 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 380 1769 549 171 1461 453 272 1129 503 222 1028 458 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 322 1739 386 153 805 177 315 954 168 192 785 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 37.5 23.4 4.9 14.9 10.0 17.0 27.8 9.0 11.8 22.4 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 37.5 23.4 4.9 14.9 10.0 17.0 27.8 9.0 11.8 22.4 7.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 1769 549 171 1461 453 272 1129 503 222 1028 458 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.98 0.70 0.89 0.55 0.39 1.16 0.85 0.33 0.87 0.76 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 389 1769 549 171 1461 453 272 1330 593 263 1311 585 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 36.0 31.4 52.5 33.6 31.9 47.1 35.4 28.9 47.7 36.0 30.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.7 17.8 7.4 40.3 1.5 2.5 103.5 4.6 0.4 22.0 2.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 17.7 9.8 3.0 6.2 4.1 15.2 12.4 3.4 6.5 9.8 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.3 53.8 38.7 92.9 35.1 34.4 150.5 39.9 29.3 69.8 38.1 31.1 LnGrp LOS E D D F D C F D C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2447 1135 1437 1113
Approach Delay, s/veh 52.8 42.8 62.9 42.7
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 43.0 21.5 36.6 16.7 36.3 18.3 39.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 38.5 17.0 41.0 12.5 31.5 16.4 41.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 39.5 19.0 24.4 12.2 16.9 13.8 29.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.1 0.1 5.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 3 ends

Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 18 39 1285 1063 16
Future Volume (veh/h) 16 18 39 1285 1063 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 20 42 1397 1155 17
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 29 34 465 2930 2956 43
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 749 881 479 3647 3678 53
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38 0 42 1397 572 600
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1674 0 479 1777 1777 1861
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 1.6 7.4 5.5 5.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 7.1 7.4 5.5 5.5
Prop In Lane 0.45 0.53 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 0 465 2930 1465 1534
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.09 0.48 0.39 0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 690 0 465 2930 1465 1534
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh31.0 0.0 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.6 0.0 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.7
LnGrp LOS D A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 38 1439 1172
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.6 2.2 1.7
Approach LOS D A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.5 7.0 58.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.0 27.0 54.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.4 3.5 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 16.6 0.1 10.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 2.5
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 657 284 160 1347 138 298 464 61 122 1078 290 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.48 0.47 0.70 0.96 0.26 0.95 0.32 0.09 0.64 0.91 0.45 Control Delay 90.5 38.3 10.2 71.0 58.1 7.0 88.2 25.4 1.8 65.9 49.5 14.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 90.5 38.3 10.2 71.0 58.1 7.0 88.2 25.4 1.8 65.9 49.5 14.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 157 26 63 377 1 231 127 0 91 413 66 Queue Length 95th (ft) #130 198 102 #110 #478 50 #407 175 11 154 #536 146 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 196 1358 598 230 1410 536 315 1437 699 235 1219 656 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.85 0.48 0.47 0.70 0.96 0.26 0.95 0.32 0.09 0.52 0.88 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 20 737 1501
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.08 0.24 0.49
Control Delay 20.1 2.9 1.9 3.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.1 2.9 1.9 3.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 1 31 87
Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 7 54 147
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 654 250 3047 3041
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.08 0.24 0.49
Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd 03/10/2021
02/18/2021 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 291 1697 368 151 777 175 297 927 166 189 771 129 v/c Ratio 1.07 1.05 0.62 0.96 0.54 0.32 1.15 0.73 0.27 0.82 0.64 0.21 Control Delay 127.5 78.1 27.3 119.7 38.0 12.1 148.7 38.1 13.5 77.7 36.2 5.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 127.5 78.1 27.3 119.7 38.0 12.1 148.7 38.1 13.5 77.7 36.2 5.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) ~128 ~526 157 61 186 26 ~271 331 37 143 263 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #220 #623 264 #130 230 84 #448 410 90 #256 331 42 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 271 1610 590 157 1440 540 258 1263 626 246 1209 625 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.07 1.05 0.62 0.96 0.54 0.32 1.15 0.73 0.27 0.77 0.64 0.21 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St 03/10/2021
02/18/2021 Existing PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 41 1353 1143
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.42 0.36
Control Delay 21.4 2.3 2.1 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 2.3 2.1 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 0 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 10 120 92
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 647 409 3207 3202
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.10 0.42 0.36
Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 668 292 162 1371 140 303 473 62 124 1108 300 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.47 0.47 0.83 0.95 0.26 1.00 0.33 0.09 0.64 0.93 0.47 Control Delay 97.9 36.8 9.5 88.1 57.2 7.1 101.3 26.0 1.9 66.1 51.7 16.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 97.9 36.8 9.5 88.1 57.2 7.1 101.3 26.0 1.9 66.1 51.7 16.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 69 157 25 65 383 2 ~238 132 0 93 430 79 Queue Length 95th (ft) #136 197 100 #126 #483 51 #424 181 12 155 #562 162 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 192 1435 625 195 1439 545 303 1418 691 235 1215 648 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.89 0.47 0.47 0.83 0.95 0.26 1.00 0.33 0.09 0.53 0.91 0.46 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 20 750 1536
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.08 0.25 0.51
Control Delay 20.1 3.0 2.0 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.1 3.0 2.0 3.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 1 32 91
Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 7 55 153
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 654 239 3047 3041
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.08 0.25 0.51
Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 301 1729 376 153 796 177 305 954 168 192 785 136 v/c Ratio 0.96 1.02 0.61 0.93 0.54 0.32 1.13 0.83 0.28 0.81 0.72 0.23 Control Delay 93.3 65.9 26.3 109.0 36.8 11.4 137.8 42.7 8.5 73.9 39.2 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 93.3 65.9 26.3 109.0 36.8 11.4 137.8 42.7 8.5 73.9 39.2 5.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 ~534 160 61 191 23 ~278 345 16 143 269 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #216 #642 274 #132 239 82 #463 427 66 #259 337 43 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 315 1693 614 165 1470 554 271 1290 663 262 1271 655 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.96 1.02 0.61 0.93 0.54 0.32 1.13 0.74 0.25 0.73 0.62 0.21 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 42 1387 1163
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.11 0.43 0.36
Control Delay 21.4 2.3 2.1 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 2.3 2.1 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 0 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 11 124 94
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 647 399 3207 3202
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.11 0.43 0.36
Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 188 677 301 162 1379 140 312 473 62 124 1108 300 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.47 0.48 0.83 0.96 0.26 1.03 0.33 0.09 0.64 0.93 0.47 Control Delay 116.4 36.9 9.8 88.1 58.1 7.1 108.0 26.0 1.9 66.1 51.7 16.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 116.4 36.9 9.8 88.1 58.1 7.1 108.0 26.0 1.9 66.1 51.7 16.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 159 28 65 386 2 ~259 132 0 93 430 81 Queue Length 95th (ft) #153 199 105 #126 #488 51 #440 181 12 155 #562 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 192 1435 628 195 1439 545 303 1418 691 235 1215 646 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 0.47 0.48 0.83 0.96 0.26 1.03 0.33 0.09 0.53 0.91 0.46 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP AM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 20 759 1544
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.08 0.25 0.51
Control Delay 20.1 3.0 2.0 3.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 20.1 3.0 2.0 3.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 1 32 92
Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 7 56 155
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 654 237 3047 3041
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.08 0.25 0.51
Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Del Amo Blvd & Long Beach Blvd
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 322 1739 386 153 805 177 315 954 168 192 785 136 v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 0.62 0.93 0.57 0.33 1.21 0.83 0.28 0.82 0.72 0.23 Control Delay 74.2 62.4 26.2 111.0 38.4 11.8 165.6 43.5 8.6 76.5 39.3 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 74.2 62.4 26.2 111.0 38.4 11.8 165.6 43.5 8.6 76.5 39.3 5.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 128 ~533 165 61 198 24 ~303 348 17 145 271 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #214 #640 280 #132 246 84 #491 430 66 #266 340 44 Internal Link Dist (ft) 870 702 406 729
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 100 145 100 205 60 190
Base Capacity (vph) 373 1725 625 164 1415 538 261 1281 659 252 1262 652 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.86 1.01 0.62 0.93 0.57 0.33 1.21 0.74 0.25 0.76 0.62 0.21 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Long Beach Blvd & 51st St
02/18/2021 Opening Year 2022 WP PM Synchro 10 Report

Page 2 ends

Lane Group EBL NBL NBT SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 37 42 1397 1172
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.11 0.44 0.37
Control Delay 21.4 2.4 2.1 1.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 21.4 2.4 2.1 1.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 7 0 0 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 32 11 125 95
Internal Link Dist (ft) 416 729 235
Turn Bay Length (ft) 145
Base Capacity (vph) 647 395 3207 3202
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.11 0.44 0.37
Intersection Summary

APPENDIX F

DRIVE-THROUGH

QUEUING DATA
Project#: 21-020035-001
Location: 76 Car Wash Drive Thru at 4294 University Pkwy City: San Bernardino, CA
Day: Saturday
Date: 2/6/2021
Interval Drive Thru Lane Queue Remarks
Queue Movement Study
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
1:39:40 PM 1
1:40:34 PM 0
1:42:08 PM 1
1:42:24 PM 2
1:42:49 PM 1
1:43:34 PM 2
1:44:00 PM 1
1:45:27 PM 0
1:46:05 PM 1
1:47:11 PM 2
1:47:18 PM 3
1:47:59 PM 2
1:48:11 PM 3
1:48:53 PM 2
1:49:59 PM 1
1:51:06 PM 0
1:57:43 PM 1
1:58:32 PM 2
1:58:35 PM 1
TOTAL 782
Car Wash Development Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
prepared for
A & S Engineering
28405 Sand Canyon Road, Suite B
Canyon Country, California 91387
Contact: Ahmad Ghaderi
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 2021
Attachment I
Table of Contents

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study i
Table of Contents
1 Project Description and Impact Summary ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Summary .................................................................................................................. 2 2 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting ................................................................................. 7

2.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 14 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 24

3.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................... 32 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 37 5 References .................................................................................................................................... 39 Tables
Table 1 Summary of Impacts ............................................................................................................... 1 Table 2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................. 9 Table 3 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Stations ..................................................... 13 Table 4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds .......................................................................... 17 Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs (SRA-4) ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 6 Project Construction Emissions ............................................................................................ 19 Table 7 Project Operational Emissions - Regional ............................................................................. 20 Table 8 Project Operational Emissions - Local ................................................................................... 21 Table 9 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................ 35 Table 10 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................... 35 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 6 A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

ii
Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMod Output Files
Appendix B On-site Exhaust Emissions Calculations

Project Description and Impact Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study 1
1 Project Description and Impact Summary

1.1 Introduction
This study analyzes the potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the proposed 5005 Long Beach Boulevard project (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) in Long Beach, California. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this study under contract to A & S Engineering for the City of Long Beach to use in support of the environmental documentation being prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this study is to analyze the project’s air quality and GHG impacts related to both temporary construction activity and long-term operation of the project. The conclusions of this study are summarized in Table 1, followed by the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) required for the project.

Table 1 Summary of Impacts
Impact Statement
Proposed Project’s
Level of Significance Applicable RCMs
Air Quality
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than significant impact None
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than significant impact RCM-1 and RCM-3
through RCM-5
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than significant impact None
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact RCM-2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact None
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Less than significant impact None
Regulatory Compliance Measures
RCMs are existing requirements and reasonably anticipated standard conditions that are based on local, State, or federal regulations and laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. RCMs are not included as mitigation measures in the environmental clearance document because the project is required to comply with RCMs through State and local regulations.

RCM-1 Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities: Compliance with Provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403
The project shall comply with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), including the following provisions of Rule 403:

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

2 ▪ All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. ▪ The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. ▪ All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), in order to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ▪ All dirt/soil shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust.
▪ All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions.
▪ Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turned off.

RCM-2 Odors: Compliance with Provisions of SCAQMD Rule 402 The project shall comply with the following provision of SCAQMD Rule 402: a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

RCM-3 Engine Idling
In accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to five minutes at any location.

RCM-4 Emission Standards
In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.

RCM-5 Architectural Coatings: Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings.

1.2 Project Summary
Project Location
The 0.46-acre project site (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 7132-028-019) is located in the City of Long Beach at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The project site is zoned Community Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-L) within the Long Beach 2040 Plan Area. The project site is currently an existing food mart and gas station with a parking lot area.

Project Description and Impact Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study 3
See Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the project site location in a regional context and local context, respectively.

The surrounding area is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Interstate 710 (I-710) is located approximately 0.6 mile west of the project site. The properties to the north are zoned CCA and consists of Dooley Elementary School. The property to the west is a dine in restaurant also zoned CCA. Residences are located further to the west, at an approximate distance of 400 feet from the project site and are zoned Multi-Family Residential/Townhouse (R-3-T). Commercial properties to the south across Del Amo Boulevard are zoned CCA and are developed with one-gas station and food mart. Single-family residences to the south across Del Amo Boulevard are zoned R-3-T. The properties to the east are zoned Community R-3-N Commercial (CCN) and are developed with mixed retail. Del Amo Gardens retirement home is located approximately 450 feet east of the project site and is zoned Moderate-density Multiple Residential (R-4-R).

Project Description
The project site is located at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach, near the Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard intersection. The project includes a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a new 3,058-square-foot detached self-service automated car wash (2,000-square-foot care wash tunnel and 1,058 square feet of equipment rooms and office space) and 15 vacuum parking spaces to an existing food mart and gas station along the north property line (see Figure 3). The project would not use emergency back‐up generators. The express car wash would use a conveyer system to move multiple vehicles at once. The queue line for the car wash would be able to handle eight vehicles.

Construction
For the purposes of this analysis, project construction is assumed to commence in September 2021.

Construction activities are assumed to occur five days a week.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

4 Figure 1 Regional Location Map

Project Description and Impact Summary

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study 5
Figure 2 Project Site Location

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

6 Figure 3 Site Plan

Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 7
2 Air Quality

2.1 Environmental and Regulatory Setting
Local Climate and Meteorology
The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The SCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. The regional climate in the SCAB is semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The air quality in the SCAB is primarily influenced by meteorology and a wide range of emission sources, such as dense population centers, substantial vehicular traffic, and industry.

Air pollutant emissions in the SCAB are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources.

Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Figure 4 shows the typical wind direction in the Long Beach area. As shown in the figure, the primary wind direction is from the northwest, as evidenced by the purple tails of the wind speed (15 to 20 miles per hour) from the northwest. This indicates that the wind would, on average, blow pollutants away from the car wash to the southeast away from Dooley Elementary School.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

8 Figure 4. Long Beach Airport Windrose Plot.

Source: Iowa Environmental Mesonet 2021
Air Quality Regulation
Federal and California Clean Air Acts
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state equivalent within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). County-level air districts provide local management of air quality. CARB has established air quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the local air

Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 9
districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has established 15 air basins statewide, including the SCAB.

The USEPA has set primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with diameters of up to ten microns (PM10) and up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality standards (known as the California ambient air quality standards [CAAQS]) for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards. Table 2 lists the current federal and state standards for regulated pollutants.

Table 2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standards Ozone 1-Hour – 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
CO 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
NO2 Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
SO2 Annual .030 ppm –
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual – 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 –
Lead 30-Day Average – 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 –
Visibility Reducing Particles 8-Hour – Extinction of 0.23 per kilometer Sulfates 24-Hour – 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour – 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour – 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: CARB 2016
SCAQMD is the designated air quality control agency in the SCAB, which is a non-attainment area for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is also designated non-attainment for lead (SCAQMD 2016).

The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and state standards.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

10 Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program. The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. To account for the effects of the Part One Rule, CARB released off- model adjustment factors on November 20, 2019 to adjust criteria air pollutant emissions outputs from the EMFAC model. These off-model adjustment factors are to be applied by multiplying the emissions calculated for light- and medium-duty vehicles by the adjustment factor. With the incorporation of these adjustment factors, operational emissions generated by light-duty automobiles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks associated with project-related vehicle trips at the year 2021, would be approximately 0.01 percent greater for ROG, 0.09 percent greater for particulate matter, 0.02 percent greater for NOX, and 0.05 percent greater for CO. These increases would have a negligible impact on overall operational emissions generated by the project and would not alter the significance of the project’s operational emissions as discussed further below.

Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere. Primary criteria pollutants include CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and lead. Ozone is considered a secondary criteria pollutant because it is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The following subsections describe the characteristics, sources, and health and atmospheric effects of critical air contaminants.

Ozone
Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and ROG.1 Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it usually occurs in substantial concentrations between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near fuel combustion equipment and other sources of CO. The primary source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Carbon monoxide’s health effects are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, CO reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulty in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity, and impaired mental abilities.

1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions (CARB 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions and the term ROG is used in this report.). SCAQMD uses the term VOC to denote organic precursors.

Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 11
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light, gives a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere, and reduces visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of ozone/smog and acid rain.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur- containing fossil fuels. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide. Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). In humid atmospheres, SO2 can also form sulfuric acid mist, which can eventually react to produce sulfate particulates that can inhibit visibility. Combustion of high sulfur-content fuels is the major source of SO2, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing are minor contributors. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 irritates the upper respiratory tract. At lower concentrations, when in conjunction with particulates, SO2 appears to do still greater harm by injuring lung tissues. This compound also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. Sulfur dioxide causes respiratory irritation, including wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Sulfur oxides, in combination with moisture and oxygen, can yellow leaves on plants, dissolve marble, and eat away iron and steel.

Suspended Particulates
Atmospheric particulate matter is comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. The particulates that are of particular concern are PM10 (small particulate matter that measures no more than 10 microns in diameter) and PM2.5 (fine particulate matter that measures no more than 2.5 microns in diameter). The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with PM10 and PM2.5 can be different. Major man-made sources of PM10 are agricultural operations, industrial processes, combustion of fossil fuels, construction, demolition operations, and entrainment of road dust into the atmosphere. Natural sources include windblown dust, wildfire smoke, and sea spray salt. The finer PM2.5 particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM2.5 is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.

Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment, as well as in manufacturing products. Lead occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The major sources of lead emissions historically A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

12 have been mobile and industrial sources. In the early 1970s, the USEPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The USEPA completed the ban prohibiting the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the USEPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, atmospheric lead concentrations have declined substantially over the past several decades. The most dramatic reductions in lead emissions occurred prior to 1990 due to the removal of lead from gasoline sold for most highway vehicles. Lead emissions were further reduced substantially between 1990 and 2008, with reductions occurring in the metals industries in part due to national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2013). As a result of phasing out leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Lead may cause a range of health effects, including anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases). The proposed project does not include any stationary sources of lead emissions.

Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in substantial emissions of lead, and this pollutant is not discussed further in this analysis.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engines that emit exhaust containing solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM; CARB 2011). TACs are different than the criteria pollutants previously discussed because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects, and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.

Current Air Quality
The project site is located within the 90th percentile or top 10 percent for the most pollution burdened, as outlined in Map LU-6 of the City’s updated Land Use Element (City of Long Beach 2019a). This map is derived from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Cal EnviroScreen which uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to assess the pollution burden and vulnerability of populations by census tract.

The SCAQMD operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and to determine whether ambient air quality meets the NAAQS and CAAQS. The monitoring station closest to the project is the Long Beach - Route 710 Near Road station located at the off and on- ramp of Interstate 710 onto Long Beach Boulevard, approximately 1.1 miles west of the project site.

This station reports monitoring data for NO2 and PM2.5, but not ozone and PM10. Therefore, ozone and PM10 concentrations were obtained from the next closest station with available data, which is the Long Beach – 2425 Webster Street Station monitoring station located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the project site. Table 3 indicates the number of days that the NAAQS and CAAQS has Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 13
been exceeded at these stations in each of the last three years. The data indicate that the state PM10 standards were exceeded each year from 2017 to 2019 and federal standards were exceeded in 2019, and the federal PM2.5 was exceeded in 2017 and 2019. No other state or federal standards were exceeded at this monitoring station.

Table 3 Ambient Air Quality at the Nearest Monitoring Stations Pollutant 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (ppm), Eight-Hour Average1 0.068 0.063 0.064
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 0 0 0 Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour1 0.082 0.074 0.075
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Worst Hour2 0.116 0.0903 0.0977 Number of days of state exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <10 microns (g/m3), Worst 24 Hours1 79.0 84.0 155.8 Number of days of state exceedances (>50 g/m3) 10 4 4
Number of days of federal exceedances (>150 g/m3) 0 0 1 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns (g/m3), Worst 24 Hours2 85.4 103.8 36.7 Number of days of federal exceedances (>35 g/m3) 8 9 1 1 Data obtained from the Long Beach – 2425 Webster Street. 2 Data obtained from the Long Beach – Route 710 Near Road Source: CARB 2020a
Air Quality Management Plan
Under state law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which its jurisdiction is in non-compliance. The SCAQMD updates the plan every three years. Each iteration of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon. The latest AQMP, the 2016 AQMP, was adopted on March 3, 2017. It incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2012 AQMP, including the approval of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm that was finalized in 2015. The Final 2016 AQMP addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and meteorological air quality models. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) projections for socio-economic data (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) and transportation activities from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) are integrated into the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2012 AQMP for the attainment of federal PM and ozone standards and highlights the significant amount of reductions to be achieved. It emphasizes the need for interagency planning to identify additional strategies to A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

14 achieve reductions within the timeframes allowed under the federal Clean Air Act, especially in the area of mobile sources. The 2016 AQMP also includes a discussion of emerging issues and opportunities, such as fugitive toxic particulate emissions, zero-emission mobile source control strategies, and the interacting dynamics among climate, energy, and air pollution. The 2016 AQMP also demonstrates strategies for attainment of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard and vehicle miles travelled emissions offsets, pursuant to recent USEPA requirements (SCAQMD 2017).

Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with a margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65; people engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Therefore, the majority of sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include Dooley Elementary School located immediately north of the project site as well as single family residences located across Del Amo Boulevard, approximated 120 feet south of the project site.

2.2 Impact Analysis
This air quality analysis conforms to the methodologies recommended in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) and supplemental guidance provided by the SCAQMD, including recommended thresholds for emissions associated with both construction and operation of the project (SCAQMD 2015).

Methodology
The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod uses project-specific information, including the project’s land uses, square footages for different uses (e.g., automobile care center, parking lot), and location, to estimate a project’s construction and operational emissions.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on- site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. Emissions were modeled assuming construction of a 3,058 square-feet car wash and 15 parking spaces. Construction phases involved in the construction process are assumed to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. For the purposes of this analysis, the start of construction was assumed to begin in September 2021.

No import or export of soil would be required as it would be balanced on site. Material export would include exporting the removed existing asphalt, which would occur over an approximate

0.46 acre. The existing asphalt surface was estimated to be 4 inches thick with a mass of 145 pounds per cubic foot (National Asphalt Pavement Association, n.d.), resulting in the export of 485 tons of debris. The site preparation phase default in CalEEMod was extended to one week from one day to account for export of debris.

Other details such as construction schedule (outside of the site preparation phase) and equipment use were based on CalEEMod defaults. Architectural coating phase was assumed to start halfway Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 15
into building construction to account for coating as segments of the building are constructed. In addition, as detailed in Section 1, Project Description and Impact Summary, it was assumed that project construction would comply with all applicable regulatory standards, including SCAQMD Rule 403 (RCM-1 Fugitive Dust), SCAQMD Rule 402 (RCM-2 Odor Compliance), Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (RCM-3 Engine Idling), Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (RCM-4 Emission Standards) and Rule 1113 (RCM-5 Architectural Coatings).

Operational Emissions
CalEEMod does not contain a land use directly correlated to a car wash use; the project’s car wash was attributed to the “Automobile Care Center” land use subtype, with mobile, energy, and water use modified for the unique characteristics of a car wash, as described below and in Section 3.2.

Operational sources of criteria pollutant emissions include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions.

ENERGY SOURCES
Emissions from energy use include electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are based on USEPA’s AP-42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009). Electricity emissions only apply to GHG emissions (as the energy is generated off-site and therefore may not be relevant for local and regional air quality conditions) and are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CAPCOA 2017). The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod currently incorporates California’s 2016 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards.

Data from professional car wash industry surveys and reports were used to estimate the energy requirements for the proposed car wash. The annual number of vehicles that would be washed for the project was estimated based on a 2015 industry survey, which reported an average of approximately 80,000 vehicles per year for exterior-only automated conveyor car washes (Professional Car Washing 2017). The energy requirements for the car wash were estimated using car wash industry survey cost averages of $0.50 per vehicle for electricity and $0.12 per vehicle for natural gas (Professional Car Washing 2014). The cost of $0.50 for electricity was converted to

4.69 kilowatt hours (kwh) per vehicle for electricity based on an average cost of $0.1066 per kwh for commercial customers in the U.S. in 2017 (U.S. Energy Information Administration [USEIA] 2018a) for a total annual electricity use of 375,200 kwh per year. The cost of $0.12 for natural gas was converted to 15.79 kilo-British Thermal Units (kBtu) per vehicle for natural gas based average cost of $7.88 per 1,000 cubic feet2 for commercial customers in the U.S. in 2017 (USEIA 2018b) for a total annual natural gas use of 1,263,200 kBtu per year.

AREA SOURCES
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2017).

2 For natural gas, 1,000 cubic feet = 1,037 kBtu
A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

16 MOBILE SOURCES
Mobile source emissions consist of emissions generated by customers to the project site and vehicles using the car wash. According to the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Kimley Horn 2021), the project would generate 738 trips per day.

ON-SITE EXHAUST EMISSIONS
Criteria pollutant emissions of CO, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and the ozone precursors ROG and NOX, would occur from vehicles using the project site. Emissions from the vehicles of customers who utilize the car wash, including the queue, are running exhaust emissions, which occur as the user slowly moves through the car wash. Running exhaust emissions occur after the engine is warmed up and the emissions control system in the vehicle have reached full operating temperature. As the vehicles would be in operation the entire time while in queue or in the car wash (i.e., no engine start up or shut off), only emissions associated with a running engine are calculated.

Emission factors used to calculate running exhaust emissions were obtained from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) EMission FACtor 2017 database software (EMFAC2017). EMFAC2017 produces emissions factors for each mode of engine operations specific to various vehicle classes and emissions control technologies for a range of vehicle speeds, soak times, variable start times, and ambient temperatures. Inputs in EMFAC2017 included calendar year, the air district, vehicle model year, fuel types, and speeds. The flowing parameters were used to develop the emission factors:

Calendar Year: 2020
Air District: SCAQMD
Vehicle Model Years: All years aggregated
Fuel Type: All
Speeds: 5 miles per hour (mph) (the lowest speed available) The vehicles would be idling for a portion of their time in the queue and while going through the car wash; therefore, idle time emissions for light-duty vehicles is incorporated into the running exhaust emissions by multiplying the emission factors by five per the EMFAC2017 Guidance manual.

The emission factors for the EMFAC2017 vehicle passenger vehicle categories (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, and MDV) were weighted according to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each vehicle category, and after weighting were averaged to obtain one emission factor per pollutant. Emission factors are provided in grams per mile. Although vehicles would only travel approximately 350 feet through the queue and car wash at the project site, the emissions factors used were the most conservative, i.e. all vehicles are modeled at idle for the entire period. Emissions of air quality pollutants in this analysis are compared to the regional thresholds and LSTs.

According to the project applicant, it would take each vehicle approximately five minutes to use the car wash. Since the car wash can move multiple vehicles through at once, according to the project applicant the maximum queuing and carwash process time for a vehicle would be in the range of 6-10 minutes. For the calculations, it was conservatively assumed that each vehicle would be running on site for 10 minutes. According to the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Kimley Horn 2021), the project would generate 738 trips per day. Therefore, it was assumed that 369 vehicles would pass through the car wash per day.

These exhaust emission factors were added to the CalEEMod emissions results to demonstrate the project’s total emissions.

Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 17
Significance Thresholds
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact to air quality, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
Regional Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends quantitative regional significance thresholds for temporary construction activities and long-term project operation in the SCAB, shown in Table 4.

Table 4 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
75 pounds per day of VOC
100 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
55 pounds per day of VOC
55 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), distance to the sensitive receptor, and project size. By taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, LSTs are able to account for the existing conditions of an area – if an area is more polluted than others, it will have stricter LSTs. The LST values in SRA-4, where the project is located, are some of the strictest in the entire SCAQMD region. For example, for the gradual conversion of NOX to NO2 during construction or operation on a 1-acre site, the limits are the 2nd strictest out of 38 SRAs, only behind SRA-12 (South Central LA County). SRA-4 also has the lowest possible thresholds of one pound per day for PM10 and PM2.5.

LSTs have been developed for emissions generated in construction areas up to five acres in size.

However, LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed stationary location and are not applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008). As such, LSTs are typically applied only to A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

18 construction emissions because the majority of operational emissions are associated with project- generated vehicle trips.

The SCAQMD provides LST lookup tables for project sites that measure one, two, or five acres.

Operation of the car wash would occur on an area less than one acre in size; therefore, this analysis utilizes the one-acre LSTs. LSTs are provided for receptors at 82 to 1,640 feet from the project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. Operational activity of the car wash and queue line would occur approximately 25 feet to 100 feet from the school to the north. According to the SCAQMD’s publication, Final LST Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 82 feet to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 82 feet. Therefore, the analysis below uses the LST values for 82 feet. In addition, as stated above, the project is in SRA-4 (South Coastal LA County). LSTs for operation in SRA-4 on a 1-acre site with a receptor 82 feet away are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 SCAQMD LSTs (SRA-4)

Allowable Emissions for a
1-acre Site in SRA 4 for a Receptor 82 Feet Away (lbs/day) Pollutant Construction Operation
Gradual conversion of NOX to NO2 57 57
CO 585 585
PM10 4 1
PM2.5 3 1
Source: SCAQMD 2009
Project Impacts
Threshold 1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP relies on local general plans and the demographic forecasts contained in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS in its own projections for managing air quality in the SCAB. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by SCAG’s growth projections and/or the General Plan would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would likewise be consistent with the AQMP.

The employment growth forecasts in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS for the City estimate that the total number of jobs would increase from 153,200 in 2012 to 181,700 in 2040, for an increase of 28,500 jobs. The minor increase in employment anticipated from a car wash (i.e., several employees) would be within the SCAG’s projected 2040 employment increase of 2,500 jobs and the project would not cause employment in the City to exceed official regional employment projections.

In addition, the AQMP provides strategies and measures to reach attainment with the thresholds for 8-hour and 1-hour ozone and PM2.5. As shown in Table 6 and Table 7 below, the project would not generate criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ozone precursors Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 19
(ROG and NOX) and PM2.5. Since the project’s employment would be within SCAG 2016 forecasts, the project would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 2 Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Construction Impacts
Table 6 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants associated with construction of the proposed project. As shown below, VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds or LSTs. Because air pollutant emissions generated by project construction would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds or LSTs, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 6 Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs./day)
Year VOC NOx CO SO2╩ PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 6 10 8 <1 <1 <1
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum Daily On-site Emissions 6 8 8 <1 <1 <1
SCAQMD Localized Significance
Thresholds (LSTs)
N/A 57 585 N/A 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No No N/A No No
Notes: All emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulatory compliance measures.

Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions. Maximum on-site emissions are the highest emissions that would occur on the project site from on-site sources such as heavy construction equipment and architectural coatings and excludes off-site emissions from sources such as construction worker vehicle trips and haul truck trips.

Operational Impacts

REGIONAL EMISSIONS
Table 7 summarizes the project’s area, energy, and mobile operational emissions by emission source, as well as the project’s on-site exhaust emissions with a 10-minute maximum trip and with 369 vehicles per day through the car wash, compared to regional standards. The majority of project- related operational emissions would result from vehicle trips to and from the site. As shown in Table 7, operational criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected regional air quality violation, and impacts would be less than significant.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

20 Table 7 Project Operational Emissions - Regional
Emission Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile <1 4 8 <1 2 <1
On-site Exhaust <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total Project Emissions - Regional 1 5 8 <1 2 <1
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Area, energy, and mobile emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod; see Appendix A for modeling results. On-site exhaust emission calculations are included in Appendix B. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results that include compliance with regulatory compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

LOCAL EMISSIONS
LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed stationary location and are not applicable to mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008). Therefore, the project’s local operational emissions without off-site mobile emissions are shown in Table 8, which summarizes the project’s area and energy operational emissions, as well as the project’s on-site exhaust emissions with a 10-minute maximum trip and with 369 vehicles per day through the car wash. As shown in Table 8, operational criteria pollutant emissions would be well below the SCAQMD local thresholds for criteria pollutants. As a further example of the negligible emissions from the project’s operational use compared to SCAQMD LSTs, it would take approximately 375,000 vehicles using the car wash per day to result in PM10 criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD LSTs for SRA-4.

These emissions are so low compared to operational LSTs because these thresholds are developed to capture the most important contributors to local air quality concerns, such as warehouse uses with a substantial amount of heavy trucks in use or industrial point sources. Land uses such as a car wash that only have light-duty vehicle use result in negligible emissions as modern light-duty vehicles are relatively efficient in terms of the local criteria pollutants they generate compared to industrial sources or heavy-duty trucks.

Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 21
Table 8 Project Operational Emissions - Local
Emission Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.0711 0.00002 0.00185 0 0.00001 0.00001
Energy 0.0357 0.3242 0.2724 0.00195 0.0246 0.0246
On-site Exhaust 0.010 0.012 0.162 0.001 0.001 0.001
Total Project Emissions - Local 0.1168 0.33622 0.43625 0.00295 0.02561 0.02561 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds
(LSTs)
N/A 57 585 N/A 1 1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Area and energy emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod; see Appendix A for modeling results. On-site exhaust emission calculations are included in Appendix B. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results that include compliance with regulatory compliance measures. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

Further reducing localized pollutants frorm the project site to nearby land uses (e.g., Dooley Elementary School) would be the nine-foot cinderblock wall at the northern property boundary. As this wall would be located at a higher height than the exhaust of any vehicle that would use the car wash, it would have the effect of blocking some pollutants that may be emitted by the project’s users. In addition, as shown in Figure 4, the typical and strongest wind direction in the project area is from the northwest, which would typically blow pollutants away from the adjacent school and towards the southeast. Students at Dooley Elementary School using the playground facilities to the north of the project site would face much greater exposure from vehicles on Long Beach Boulevard, which contains tens of thousands of vehicles per day and is only separated from the playground by a chain-link fence, not a block wall like the project site.

Given the aforementioned, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected local air quality violation, and would not have a substantial localized impact to nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., Dooley Elementary School) from criteria pollutant emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative context for air quality is regional. The SCAB is designated a nonattainment area for the federal and state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the state PM10 standards, the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the federal and state annual PM2.5 standard. SCAB is in attainment of all other federal and state standards. The project would contribute particulate matter and the ozone precursors ROG and NOX to the area during construction and operation. As described above, regional emissions during construction would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; and would be less than significant. With respect to localized impacts, the consideration of cumulative construction particulate matter impacts is limited to cases when projects constructed simultaneously are within a few hundred yards of each other because of: (1) the combination of the short range (distance) of particulate dispersion (especially when compared to gaseous pollutants); and (2) the SCAQMD’s required dust control measures which further limit particulate dispersion from a project site.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

22 Therefore, with the implementation of dust control measures, the unlikelihood that construction would occur within a few hundred yards of major off-site construction, and compliance with SCAQMD regional construction emission thresholds, the project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable amount of pollutants from construction emissions.

Threshold 3 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Impact
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local CO concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).

The entire SCAB is in conformance with state and federal CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. No stations within the vicinity of the project site have monitored CO in the last eight years. In 2012, the Long Beach – 2425 Webster Street station detected an eight-hour maximum CO concentration of 2.6 ppm, which is substantially below the state and federal standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2020a). As shown in Table 6, maximum daily CO emissions generated by project construction would be 8 pounds, and maximum on-site emissions generated by project construction would be 8 pounds, which would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional threshold (550 pounds per day) or LST (585 pounds per day) for CO. Likewise, as shown in Table 7, project operations from area, energy, and mobile emissions sources combined would result a net increase in maximum daily CO emissions of approximately 7 pounds. Both the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and LSTs are designed to be protective of public health. Based on the low background level of CO in the project area, ever-improving vehicle emissions standards for new cars in accordance with state and federal regulations, and the project’s low level of operational CO emissions, the project would not create new CO hotspots. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations, and localized air quality impacts related to CO hot spots would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction-related activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non-cancer health impacts (CARB 2017a).

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately five years. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The Air Quality

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 23
risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period (assumed to be the approximate time that a person spends in a household). OEHHA recommends this risk be bracketed with 9-year and 70-year exposure periods. Health risk assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project.

The maximum PM2.5 emissions, which is used to represent DPM emissions for this analysis, would occur during site preparation and grading activities. While site preparation and grading emissions represent the worst-case condition, such activities would only occur for approximately two weeks, less than two percent, one percent, and 0.2 percent of the typical health risk calculation period of 9 years, 30 years, and 70 years, respectively. PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and paving would require less construction equipment. Therefore, given the aforementioned, DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability that the Maximally Exposed Individual would contract cancer is greater than 10 in one million or to generate ground- level concentrations of noncarcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. This impact would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Sources of operational TAC’s include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high- volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. Project operation does not involve any of these uses; therefore, it is not considered a source of TACs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold 4 Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT For construction activities, odors would be short-term in nature and are subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisance (CARB 2018a). Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short-term impacts would be less than significant.

Common sources of operational odor complaints include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. The proposed project would not include these uses as the proposed project entails basic car wash uses that do not typically emit odors. Solid waste generated by the proposed on-site uses would be collected by a contracted waste hauler, ensuring that any odors resulting from on-site waste would be managed and collected in a manner to prevent the proliferation of odors. Operational odor impacts would be less than significant.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

24 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.1 Background
This section analyzes GHG emissions associated with the project and potential impacts related to climate change.

Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but “climate change” is preferred to “global warming” because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (95 percent or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities has been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century (IPCC 2014).

Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (USEPA 2020). Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane CH4 has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2007).

The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA 2006).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 25
However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 46,000 million metric tons (MMT, or gigatonne) CO2e in 2010 (IPCC 2014). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 65 percent of total emissions in 2010. Of anthropogenic GHGs, CO2 was the most abundant, accounting for 76 percent of total 2010 emissions. Methane emissions accounted for 16 percent of the 2010 total, while N2O and fluorinated gases accounted for 6 percent and 2 percent respectively (IPCC 2014).

Total United States (U.S.) GHG emissions were 6,676.6 MMT CO2e in 2018. Since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of 0.13 percent for a total increase of

3.7 percent since 1990. Emissions increased by 2.9 percent from 2017 to 2018. The increase from 2017 to 2018 was primarily the result of increased fossil fuel combustion due to several factors, including increased energy use from greater heating and cooling needs due to a colder winter and hotter summer in 2018 as compared to 2017. In 2018, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 29 percent and 28 percent, respectively, of GHG emissions while the residential and commercial end-use sectors each accounted for 16 percent of GHG emissions with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (USEPA 2020).

Based on the CARB’s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017, California produced 424.1 MMT CO2e in 2017. The major source of GHG emissions in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, contributing 24 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, while electric power accounts for approximately 15 percent (CARB 2019a). California emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other states, is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target as emissions fell below 431 MMT CO2e (CARB 2019a). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT CO2e (CARB 2017b).

Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the five warmest years in the 1880-2019 record have all occurred since 2015 with nine of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2005. The observed global mean surface temperature in 2019 was approximately 0.95°C (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average global mean surface temperature over the period from 1880 to 2019 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2019). Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land- Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in agreement that LSAT as well as sea surface temperatures have increased. Due to past and current activities, anthropogenic GHG emissions are increasing global mean surface temperature at a rate of 0.2°C per decade. In A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

26 addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC 2014 and 2018).

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). While there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state as well as regionally-specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

Air Quality
Higher temperatures, which are conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. As temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have been occurring at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality would worsen. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thereby ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

In the Los Angeles region, changes in meteorological conditions under climate change will affect future air quality. Regional stagnation conditions may occur more often in the future, which would increase pollutant concentrations (State of California 2018b). Hotter future temperatures will act to increase surface ozone concentrations both due to chemistry producing more ozone and higher rates of biogenic emissions, while increases of water vapor also influence chemistry by increasing ozone production in already polluted areas. Changes in ozone may increase in the future however, changes in particulate matter are less certain. Projected changes by 2050 are generally not statistically significant (State of California 2018b).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. However, the average early spring snowpack in the western United States, including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 27
same period, sea level rose over 5.9 inches along the central and southern California coast (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California’s water supply by accumulating snow during the state’s wet winters and releasing it slowly during the state’s dry springs and summers. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation falling as snow and result in less snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack (DWR 2008; State of California 2018). The State of California projects that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Like the rest of the state, the Greater Los Angeles region is expected to face a challenging combination of decreased water supply and increased water demand (State of California 2018b).

Greater interannual variability of rainfall and sharp decreases in snowpack will create surface water limitations for the region. Although the effect of climate change on average precipitation in the region is still unclear, more frequent occurrences of extreme events like the 2011-2016 drought could substantially decrease groundwater recharge, which is essential for the sustainability of agriculture in the region since the vast majority of water used in agriculture in the region is groundwater from local wells. Furthermore, higher temperatures mean that dry years will more quickly develop into severe drought conditions.

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could potentially affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding.

Furthermore, climate change has the potential to induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century (State of California 2018). The rising sea level increases the likelihood and risk of flooding.

The rate of increase of global mean sea levels over the 2001-2010 decade, as observed by satellites, ocean buoys and land gauges, was approximately 3.2 mm per year, which is double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. As a result, global mean sea levels averaged over the last decade were about 8 inches higher than those of 1880 (World Meteorological Organization 2013).

Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise is expected to accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea-level rise of 10 to 37 inches by 2100 (IPCC 2018). A rise in sea levels could completely erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches, result in flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events, jeopardize California’s water supply due to salt water intrusion, and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). In addition, increased CO2 emissions can cause oceans to acidify due to the carbonic acid it forms. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood- control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect the amount of snowfall, rainfall, and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. In the Greater Los Angeles region, despite small changes in average precipitation, dry and wet extremes are both expected to increase (State of California 2018b). By the late 21st century, the wettest day of the year is expected to increase across most of the region. Increased frequency and severity of atmospheric river events are also projected to occur for this region.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

28 Agriculture
California has a $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2019). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent; water demand could increase as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture; crop-yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves; and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006). More frequent droughts could substantially decrease groundwater recharge and therefore adversely affect agricultural operations that use groundwater from local wells (State of California 2018b). This could contribute to higher food prices and shortages.

Ecosystems and Wildlife
Climate change and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by 4.4 to 5.8°F in the next 50 years and by 5.6 to 8.8°F in the next century (State of California 2018a). Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals related to: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic distribution and range; (3) species’ composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018). Increases in wildfire would further remove sensitive habitat; increased severity in droughts would potentially starve plants and animals of water; and sea level rise will affect sensitive coastal ecosystems.

Regulatory Setting
The following regulations address both climate change and GHG emissions.

Federal Regulations

FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT
The U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 497) held that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor-vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that establishes the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a PSD or Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 29
Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

SAFER AFFORDABLE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES RULE
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program. The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and zero-emission vehicle mandates in California.

To account for the effects of the Part One Rule, CARB released off-model adjustment factors on November 20, 2019 to adjust criteria air pollutant emissions outputs from the EMFAC model. The Final SAFE Rule (i.e., Part Two) then relaxed federal GHG emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to increase in stringency at only about 1.5 percent per year from model year 2020 levels over model years 2021– 2026 (CARB 2020b). The previously established emission standards and related fuel economy standards would have achieved about four percent per year improvements through model year 2025. Therefore, CARB has prepared off-model CO2 emissions adjustment factors for both the EMFAC2014 and EMFAC2017 models to account for the impact of the SAFE Vehicles Rule (CARB 2020c). With the incorporation of these adjustment factors, operational emission factors for CO2 generated by light-duty automobiles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks associated with project-related vehicle trips may increase by approximately one percent (in 2020) up to as much as 17 percent (in 2050) compared to non-adjusted estimates.

These increases would not alter the significance of the operational GHG emissions from development facilitated by the project as discussed further below.

California Regulations
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.

CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 (ASSEMBLY BILL 32 AND SENATE BILL 32) The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” Assembly Bill (AB) 32, outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 target. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 MMT CO2e. On December 11, 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other sectors (CARB 2008). Many of the GHG emission reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Cap-and- Trade) have been adopted since the plan’s approval.

CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan Update in May 2014. The update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals.

The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

30 On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (detailed below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017b). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the state (CARB 2017b).

SENATE BILL 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of sub regional plans by the sub regional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

SENATE BILL 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
▪ Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
▪ Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
▪ Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 31
SENATE BILL 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for determining the effects and feasible mitigation of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. To date, a variety of air districts have adopted quantitative significance thresholds for GHGs.

Regional and Local Regulations
2020-2045 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY On May 7, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal) for federal transportation conformity purposes and considered approval of the full plan and for all other purposes within 120 days of this date. Following initial adoption, SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS on September 3, 2020 to provide a roadmap for sensible ways to expand transportation options, improve air quality and bolster Southern California’s long-term economic viability. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes ten goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center-focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020b).

City of Long Beach Sustainable City Action Plan
The City of Long Beach’s Sustainable City Action Plan (SCAP) was adopted in February 2010 (Long Beach 2010). The SCAP is intended to guide operational, policy, and financial decisions to create a more sustainable Long Beach. The SCAP includes initiatives, goals, and actions that will move Long Beach toward becoming a sustainable city. These goals and actions included in the SCAP relate to the following:

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

32 ▪ Buildings & Neighborhoods
▪ Urban Nature
▪ Energy
▪ Waste Reduction
▪ Green Economy and Lifestyle
▪ Water
▪ Transportation
City of Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
In 2017, the City of Long Beach began development of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).

The city released a draft plan in 2019, which has not yet been finalized (City of Long Beach 2019b).

The CAAP aims to reduce communitywide GHG emissions, and help the city adapt to future climate change impacts. As part of the CAAP, the City conducted a communitywide GHG inventory to identify its baseline emissions footprint and is developing business-as-usual forecasts of emissions based on anticipated growth in population, employment, housing, and other factors in the community. In the next stages of the project, the City will establish GHG reduction targets and define local actions to achieve those targets. The CAAP will provide a framework for creating or updating policies, programs, practices, and incentives for Long Beach residents and businesses to reduce the City’s GHG footprint and ensure the community and physical assets are better protected from the impacts of climate change. The policies, programs, practices, and incentives included in the CAAP will relate to the following:
▪ Public Health
▪ Parks and Open Space
▪ Water Supply
▪ Transportation
▪ Housing & Neighborhoods
▪ Energy
▪ Coastal Resources
▪ Wastewater/Stormwater

3.2 Impact Analysis
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the project would be significant if the project would:
▪ Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
▪ Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
Individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to substantially influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that may be significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 33
issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).

To determine a project-specific threshold, guidance on GHG significance thresholds in the region from SCAQMD, the air district in which the project site is located, was used. The SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in meeting minutes dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010):
▪ Tier 1. If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. ▪ Tier 2. Consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate.
▪ Tier 3. Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 3,000 MT CO2e per year for commercial projects.
▪ Tier 4. Establishes a service population threshold to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 4.8 MT CO2e per year for land use projects.

Tier 1 would not apply to the project as it is not exempt from environmental analysis. For Tier 2, while the City’s CAAP is currently in draft form, it has not adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan at the time of this analysis. Therefore, for a project-specific threshold, the City of Long Beach has selected SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold for commercial projects as the applicable project-specific threshold, in accordance with Tier 3. The SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold is frequently used by jurisdictions across Southern California to determine GHG emissions impacts from commercial projects.

Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to estimate the proposed project’s potential GHG emissions. Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in the CAPCOA (2008) CEQA and Climate Change white paper and guidance from CARB. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 (see Appendix B for CalEEMod results).

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions were modeled in accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 2.2, Methodology, under Section 2, Air Quality. Complete results from CalEEMod and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix B. In accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

34 operational emissions to determine the project’s total annual GHG emissions. Construction emissions are consistent for the project.

Operational Emissions
In CalEEMod, operational sources for area, energy, and mobile sources were modeled in accordance with the methodology outlined in Section 2.2, Methodology, under Section 2, Air Quality. As mentioned in Section 2.2, CalEEMod does not contain a land use directly correlated to a car wash use; the project’s car wash was attributed to the “Automobile Care Center” land use subtype, with water use modified for the unique characteristics of a car wash, as described below

WASTE SOURCES
GHG emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CAPCOA 2017). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

WATER AND WASTEWATER SOURCES
GHG emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California. A 20 percent reduction in indoor potable water use was incorporated in the model in accordance with CALGreen standards.

Data from professional car wash industry surveys and reports were used to estimate the water requirements for the proposed car wash. The annual number of vehicles washed for the project was estimated based on a 2015 industry survey which reported an average of approximately 80,000 vehicles per year for exterior-only automated conveyor car washes (Professional Car Washing 2017). According to a report on water conservation from the International Carwash Association, typical freshwater use for a friction type of conveyor car wash without water reclamation is 65.8 gallons per vehicle (International Carwash Association 2000). AB 2230, signed by the Governor in 2012, requires that any conveyor car wash installed after 2013 reuse a minimum of 60 percent of the water previously used in the wash or rinse cycles. Therefore, the proposed car wash would reclaim at least 39.5 gallons per vehicle for a total water use of 26.3 gallon per vehicle.

Based on 80,000 vehicles washed per year, the estimated water use for the proposed car wash would be 2,104,000 gallons per year.

NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS
Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified using guidance from CARB and the EMFAC2017 Emissions Inventory for the Los Angeles County region for the project’s operational year (2021) using the EMFAC2011 categories (CARB 2019a and 2019b; see Appendix A for calculations).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 35
Impact Analysis
Threshold 1 Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT GHG Emissions Quantification

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
As shown in Table 9, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 62 MT of CO2e. When amortized over a 30-year period, construction of the project would generate approximately 2 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 9 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Emissions
MT CO2e Construction Year
2021 62
Amortized over 30 years 2
Notes: See Appendix A for modeling results. Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.

OPERATIONAL AND TOTAL PROJECT EMISSIONS
Table 10 combines the construction and operational GHG emissions associated with development of the project. As shown, annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 651 MT of CO2e. These emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s 3,000 MT per year threshold. Therefore, impacts from GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Table 10 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
MT CO2e
Construction 2
Operational
Area
Energy
Mobile
Solid Waste
Water

<0.1
183
455
6 8
Net Total 651
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod, except for N2O mobile emissions (see Section 3.1 for methodology). See Appendix A for modeling results and N2O emissions calculations. Some numbers may not add up precisely due to rounding considerations.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

36 Threshold 2 Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies

STATE POLICIES
There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The principal state plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the follow up, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the State to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals include reducing fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills. The project would comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards and the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable GHG reduction strategies in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS
According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the updated targets for the SCAG region are eight percent below 2005 per capita emission levels by 2020 (this value is unchanged from the previous 2020 CARB target) and 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. The revised 2035 target is higher than the previous CARB target of 13 percent for the SCAG region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, supporting implementation of sustainability policies, and promoting a green region. Further specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS include designing transportation options that reduce the reliance on solo car trips, promoting low emission technologies such as electric vehicles and ride sharing, supporting statewide greenhouse gas emissions legislation, and pursuing funding opportunities to support local sustainable development projects that reduce GHG emissions. In general, a car wash use is planned to satisfy existing vehicle transportation demand and is inherently not oriented for sustainable transportation uses such as transit or rail. The car wash would be used by electric vehicles in a similar fashion to gasoline vehicles. Therefore, sustainable transportation initiatives would not apply to the project.

LOCAL POLICIES
The overarching goal of the City’s SCAP and CAAP are to increase sustainability and reduce GHG emissions within the City. The project would comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards and the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. This would be consistent with the overarching goals of the City’s SCAP and CAAP.

SUMMARY
Given the above considerations regarding SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, the City’s SCAP and CAAP, the 2017 Scoping Plan, and additional state requirements, the project is consistent with State and local policies for reducing GHG emissions, and no impacts would occur.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 37
4 Conclusions and Recommendations
As detailed above, neither construction nor operation of the project would result in significant air quality or GHG emissions impacts. The project would be required to comply with the following RCMs, which were assumed in the modeling and analysis because the project is required to comply with them through state and local regulations.

Regulatory Compliance Measures
RCM-1 Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities: Compliance with provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403.

The project shall comply with all applicable standards of the SCAQMD, including the following provisions of Rule 403:
▪ All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. ▪ The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. ▪ All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 miles per hour), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ▪ All dirt/soil shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust.
▪ All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
▪ Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turned off.

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

38 RCM-4 Emission Standards
In accordance with Section 93115 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, operation of any stationary, diesel-fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emission standards.

RCM-5 Architectural Coatings: Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 The project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of architectural coatings.

References

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 39
5 References
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed November 2020.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change:

Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.
______. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2 (accessed November 2020).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed November 2020).
______. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed November 2020).
______.2009. Definitions of VOC and ROG. January. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/speciate/voc_rog_dfn_1_09.pdf ______.2011 Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel- health.htm (accessed November 2020).
______. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm (accessed November 2020). ______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed November 2020). ______. 2017a. 2017 Amendments Health Risk Analysis.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/health-risk-assessment (accessed November 2020).
______. 2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed November 2020).
______. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation v.1.0.2. July 20, 2018. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical- documentation.pdf (accessed November 2020).
______. 2019a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. [webpage]. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed November 2020).
______. 2019b. EMFAC2017 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ (accessed November 2020).

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

40 ______. 2020a. Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed November 2020). ______. 2020b. Announcement: EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June 26.

Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/announcement_emfac_off_model%20adjustment-6262020- final.pdf
______. 2020c. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June 26. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2019. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019, with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Last modified: May 2019. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed November 2020).

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2019. “2018 Crop Year – Top 10 Commodities for California Agriculture.” California Agricultural Production Statistics. [web page]. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ (accessed November 2020).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2015. AB 341 Report to the Legislature. August 2015. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1168 (accessed November 2020).

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California.

Sacramento, CA. May 2018.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March 2006.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018.

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed November 2020).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ______. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers - Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
______. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (accessed November 2020).

References

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study 41
Iowa Environmental Mesonet. 2021. February 21. Long Beach Airport Windrose Plot. Available at:
https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/windrose.phtml?station=LGB&network=CA_ASOS Kimley Horn. 2021. Traffic Impact Analysis, Car Wash Development Project in the City of Long Beach.

March.

Long Beach, City of. 2010. Sustainable City Action Plan. http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/sustainability/media-library/documents/nature- initiatives/action-plan/scap-final. Accessed November 2020. ______. 2019a. City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element. December. Available at:
http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/advance/lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december- 2019
______. 2019b. Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Forecasts, and Targets. http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media- library/documents/planning/caap/caap-greenhouse-gas--ghg--emissions-forecasts-and- targets--draft-released-053119-logos. Accessed November 2020.

National Asphalt Pavement Association. How to Determine Quantities. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190722150051/http://www.asphaltpavement.org/index.ph p?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=227
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2020. “Fact Sheet: SAFE Vehicles Rule.” [web page]. https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe-fact-sheet (accessed November 2020).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed November 2020).

Parmesan, C. August 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecological Evolutionary Systems 37:637-669.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993.
______. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. May 6, 2005. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality- guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf (accessed November 2020). ______. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf (accessed November 2020). ______. 2009. Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. Last modified: October 21, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed November 2020).
______. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed November 2020).

A & S Engineering
5005 Long Beach Boulevard Project

42 ______. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). March 3, 2017 (accessed November 2020).
______. 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Last modified: April 2019. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds.pdf (accessed November 2020).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7, 2016. ______. 2019. Profile of the City of Long Beach.
https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/LosAngeles.pdf (accessed November 2020). ______. 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted May 7, 2020. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Adopted/fConnectSoCal-Plan.pdf (accessed November 2020).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed November 2020).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018. U. S. EPA #430-R-19-001. Washington, DC. April 13, 2020.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2013. A summary of current and climate change findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013. https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU (accessed November 2020).

Appendix A
CalEEMod Output Files

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
Parking Lot

15.00 Space

0.13 6,000.00
0 Automobile Care Center

3.06 1000sqft

0.07 3,058.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2022
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44

0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
20-10163 Long Beach Car Wash Project
South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 6/15/2021 3:24 PM

Page 1 of 24 ends

Long Beach City CouncilJuly 12, 2022

Long Beach City Council
July 12, 2022