CITY OF
LONG
Development Services Department
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3'' Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-5237
November 15, 2022
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:
C-5
Find that the Project is exempt from further environmental review and affirm staff's determination (Categorical exemption CE 22-147) and finding that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) and 153032 (Class 32 - Infill Development); and,
Approve Condition Use Permit findings and conditions of approval memorializing the City Council's August 16, 2022 action to uphold an appeal (APL22-003) and approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 18-001) for a new car wash located at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) Zoning District. (District 8)
DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on an applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's March 17, 2022 decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new automated car wash at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard (Attachment A).
The City Council considered City staff's presentation, public comments, along with an updated noise analysis and revised plans from the applicant and acted to uphold the appeal approving the CUP and affirming findings/determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. The findings, conditions of approval, and CEQA determination are being presented for the City Council's review, adoption, and affirmation.
Background
The project site is on a part of a 1 .48-acre site. The site is developed with a stand-alone restaurant and gas station with a mini mart (Attachment B). The project site is located within the CCA zoning district and has a Neighborhood Serving Centers and Corridors-Low General Plan PlaceType Designation. The area to be developed abuts the playground areas of 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
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 15, 2022
residences; and a gas station with a drive-through car wash and mini mart is located catty corner to the site across Long Beach Boulevard.
The automated self-service car wash is proposed to be located north of the mini mart and gas station abutting the northerly property line shared with the elementary school, adjacent to the school playground. An existing nine-foot perimeter wall serves as a buffer between the school and proposed car wash. The proposed car wash features a modern design with quality materials. The car wash tunnel would have a length of 100 feet and includes two drive-up lanes, each with a pay station and a queuing length of approximately 130 feet before the pay station.
The proposed project includes 15 parking stalls for vacuuming. Access to the car wash would be from the existing southernmost curb cut along Long Beach Boulevard. The northerly curb cut will be closed, and a full height curb and sidewalk constructed in its place. Other site modifications include new landscaping, security cameras, and lighting. The car wash would operate between the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm daily.
The applicant submitted an updated car wash design which extended the car wash tunnel in order to enclose the exit and turn the opening to the south, facing toward Del Amo Boulevard, and away from the elementary school. The revised design in combination with the additional absorption materials prescribed would lower the noise levels by at least 10 decibels (dBA) to
25.5 dBA through 34.7 dBA, below the city's threshold of 50 dBA (Attachment C). The City Council found that with the aforementioned design changes and with appropriate conditions, the proposed car wash project would be consistent with the general plan and operate in a manner compatible with the surrounding uses (Attachment D).
Conditions of approval have been added to ensure the use operates in a manner compatible with the surrounding uses including prohibitory conditions. Conditions of approval include, but are not limited to, an enclosed exit, installation of sound absorbing materials, prohibiting the use of outdoor speakers, signage informing patrons to keep their radios turned down, protection of pedestrian path during construction, and requirements for maintaining one staff person at the pay kiosk during all operating hours (Attachment E). These conditions have been reviewed and discussed with the applicant.
This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Erin Weesner-McKinley on October 27, 2022 and by Budget Analysis Officer Greg Sorensen on October 24, 2022.
Public Hearing Notice
Public hearing notices are not required to accept the findings to memorialize the August 16, 2022 action of the City Council. However, a courtesy notice of the item returning to the City Council was provided to individuals who previously submitted comments on the item. The August 16, 2022 City Council public hearing was duly noticed on July 27, 2022 in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC).
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
November 15, 2022
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303, Class 3 (c) and Section 16332, Class 32, this project is eligible for a CEQA categorial exception for "New Construction" and "Infill Development Projects" as the project consists of a qualifying small structure in an urbanized area on a lot under five acres (CE-22-147). In accordance with CEQA, the proposed project is located within Long Beach, occupies less than five acres, and is surrounded by urban uses. The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as detailed in the findings (Attachment F).
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
City Council action is requested on November 15, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation has no staffing impact beyond the normal budgeted scope of duties and is consistent with City Council priorities. There is no fiscal or local job impact associated with this recommendation.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Approve recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
~K
CHRISTOPHER KOO~
ACTING DIRECTOR
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ATTACHMENTS: A- VICINITY MAP
B - PLANS AND RENDERING
C- NOISE ANALYSIS {MARCH 2021)
D-FINDINGS
E - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F - CEQA EXEMPTION FINDING
APPROVED:
THOMAS B. MODICA
CITY MANAGER
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 A
Attachment B
2 Exhibit B
Jul
y 28, 2022
Mr
. Ahmad Ghaderi
A & S Engineering
Rev
ised site design at the 5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash project Long Beach, California
Dear Mr. Ghaderi:
Brid
geNet International previously performed an assessment of the projected car wash noise levels at the noise-sensitive areas (Dooley Elementary School) adjacent to the 5005 Long Beach Boulevard Car Wash project (Report #2019-003-C; May 31, 2020). With the planned site design and equipment, the projected noise levels are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
(Original Site Design)
____________________________________________________
Loc
ation L50 (dBA)
____________________________________________________
Exit End
Sc
hool Building to NW 43.0
School Playground to NW 51.7
School Playground to N 52.2
Entrance End
Sc
hool Playground to N 50.2
School Playground to NE 47.1
School Building to N 26.5
____________________________________________________
Wit
h the planned site design and equipment, the noise levels wo uld meet the City ’s adjusted Noise Ordinance limits (i.e., with the adjustment for the measured ambient levels, the L5 0 standard would be 60 dBA).
20201 SW Birch Street, Suite 150
Newport Beach, CA 92660
P: 714-272-2302
Mike.Holritz@Br idgeNet.us
Attachment C
Subsequently, t he City requested that the developer go beyond the Noise Ordinance requirements, and that the project be designed to generate noise levels 7 dB below the adjusted Noise Ordinance limits. We performed a revised assessment (Report #2019-003-D; June 22, 2021) to determine the mitigation needed to accomplish this. In order to comply with th is request, absorption (2,350 square feet of Qui etFiber QF4) was included in the m odeling of the car wash interior to absorb some of the noise. With this absorption, the noise levels would be reduced by approximately 7.5 dB, and the projected noise levels are listed in Table 2.
Table 2
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
(Original Site Design with Added Absorption)
____________________________________________________
Location L50 (dBA)
____________________________________________________
Exit End
School Building to NW 35.5
School Playground to NW 44.2
School Playground to N 44.7
Entrance End
School Playground to N 42.7
School Playground to NE 37.6
School Building to N 19.0
____________________________________________________
The revised analysis showed that with the planned site design and equipment, and with th e specified absorption added to the interior of the car wash building, the noise levels would be at least 7 dB below the City’s adjusted Noise Ordinance limits (i.e., with the adjustment for the measured ambient levels, the L5 0 s tandard would be 60 dBA ). It should be noted that these levels also meet the City’s regular 50 dBA L50 standard (with no adjustment for measured ambient levels).
Since the preparation of that report, the developer has revised the site design. The current design calls for the exit end to be entirely enclosed , with solid walls and a solid roof . The exit opening will now face south (away from the school). Artist renderings of the project show roll-up doors at both the entrance and exit ends. However, t hese doors will remai n open during car was h operations. With the current design, noise levels from the car wash operations are expected to be reduced by at least another 10 dB for receptors in the school area near the exit end. (Noise levels near the entrance end would not change significant ly). The projected noise levels are listed in Table 3.
Table 3
PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
(New Site Design with Added Absorption)
____________________________________________________
Location L50 (dBA)
____________________________________________________
Exit End
School Building to NW 25.5
School Playground to NW 34.2
School Playground to N 34.7
Entrance End
School Playground to N 42.7
School Playground to NE 37.6
School Building to N 19.0
____________________________________________________
The most stringent noise standard is the 50 dBA L50 limit. With this revised site design and added absorption, noise lev els from the car wash are now expected to be far below the Noise Ordinance limits (without including any adjustment for ambient).
With the new design, we would recommend that at least 50% of the added absorption be located in the exit area (after the blowers).
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Mike Holritz, INCE
Environmental Specialist
BridgeNet | A Tetra Tech Company
Attachment D
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FINDINGS
Application No. 1801-02 (CUP 18-001)
5005 Long Beach Boulevard
November 15, 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 CONSISTENT WITH AND CARRIES 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 Servin g 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 capabl e 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.” While no single project can implement all policies and goals, the proposed pr oject as red esigned implements many of the expressed policies and goals following are the policies that with which the proposed car wash would be consistent.
UD STRATEGY No. 15: Consider vacant parcels as infill opportunities.
This lot serves as a passive use for parking and is underutilized. The proposed car wash would redevelop this area of the lot with a car wash that would enhance the property with a contemporary building, landscaping and provide new job opportunities and add a new car wash service to the area.
Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022
Policy UD Policy UD 2 -3: Promote enhancement of the built environment through façade improvements, quality and context -sensitive infill development, and landscaping.
The proposed project makes improvements to the adjacent right of way through the closure of one
Policy UD 14-3: Allow new development projects to respond to their particular context and experiment with alternative development patterns while complementing their PlaceTypes.
Policy UD 14-5: Promote commercial center and corridor development c ompatibility with adjacent residential uses, including ensuring that project design and function minimizes the potential adverse impacts of vehicle access, parking and loading facilities, building massing, signage, lighting, trash enclosures, and noise generating uses and areas.
The project has been designed with a dual lane accommodating approximately 11 vehicles at on time and includes a bypass lane. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn finds that the site configuration would accommodate t he 95 th percentile queue of seven vehicles at one time. Additional conditions will require that the applicant to maintain a staff person at the kiosk during business hours to trouble shoot any problems that may arise and further reduce opportunit ies for the traffic to spillover into the right-of-way.
LU Policy 16-8: Require an acoustical analysis prior to project approval for projects subject to CEQA review, for all noise sensitive projects located in an area with noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. All new residential land uses shall be designed to maintain a standard of 45 dBA CNEL or less in building interiors, consistent with the General Plan. Noise reduction measures to achieve this noise level could include, but are not limited to, forced air ventilation so that windows can remain closed and/ or upgraded wall and window assemblies.
Acoustical analysis was completed by Bridgenet. The project has been designed to enclose the car wash exit and face the opening to the south away from the adjac ent elementary school. This design change in addition t o the construction f sound absorbing materials
LU Policy 18 -2: Enhance street corridors and spaces between buildings by incorporating small green areas, native and drought -tolerant landscaping and street trees.
Landscaping has been incorporated into the site design. Street trees will be required as a condition of approval. Landscaping will be designed to comply with the City’s landscape efficiency ordinance.
Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022
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 20.10.020).
A 9-foot-high perimeter wall serves as a buffer between the school and car wash. The car wash tunnel is configured so that the exit is enclosed and faces away from the school. In addition to the configuration of the tunnel , the car wash would be constructed with additional sound absorbing materials that further reduce sound levels that would be experienced on the school property.
2. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT 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 exit the drive - through facility if so desired by the patron. The length of the queuing lanes between the car wash menu payment station and the driveway approach on Long Beach Boulevard is approximately 260 feet (130 feet each lane) . 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 wou ld be below 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. The report concludes there is no significant impact from noise or air quality.
3. THE APPROVAL IS 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.
Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022
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 t o 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.
Conditions of approval have been incorporated to help ensure that vehicles do not queue within the right -of-way and that construction would be planned to minimize impacts on pedestrian traffic.
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 a new curb cut to accommodate ingress/egress from the project site. As demonstrated by the site plan, access will be achieved via an existing approach which currently serves the existing fueling facility.
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 sel f-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 vehicles for sale or repair. The project as conditioned prohibits outdoor s torage and repair uses. 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:
Findings
Case No. 1801-02
March 17, 2022
The subject property is located in the CCA Zoning D istrict 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 tha t 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 requiring compliance with Section 21.45.400 and therefore, this section of the Municipal Code would not be applicable to the proposed use.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case No. 1801-02 (CUP 18-001)
5005 Long Beach Boulevard
Date: November 15, 2022
Special Conditions:
1. A Conditional Use Permit to operate an automated car wash and 15 vacuum stations at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard.
2. This permit and all development rights hereunder shall terminate three years from the effective date (final action date or, if in the appealable area of the Coastal zone, 21 days after the local final action date) of this permit unless the use is commenced or a time extension is granted, based on a written and approved request submitted prior to the expiration of the three-year period as provided in.
3. The applicant shall construct the car wash to include all sound attenuati ng measures identified in the July 29, 2022 memo prepared by Bridgenet including:
a. A fully enclosed exit with an opening along the south elevation. b. The incorporation of absorption materials, 2,350 square feet of QuietFiber QF4. Any substitution of materials or design shall be outlined by a qualified engineer and submitted for review approval by the Zoning Administrator.
4. The applicant shall obtain permits from the Public Works Department to paint the curb along the north side of Del Amo Boulevard (south of the project site and install “No Parking Any Time” signs along the sidewalk as recommended in the Kimley - Horn and Associates, March 2021 Traffic Impact Analysis.
5. Hours of operation for the car wash use shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. daily.
6. There shall be no overnight storage of vehicles on site.
7. No vehicle auto repair shall be performed on site.
8. No outside storage of any kinds is permitted on site.
9. The applicant shall ensure that all equipment doors, not including the roll up doors to the car wash tunnel, are closed during regular operation.
10. The project site is located along a designated Safe Route to school and is Attachment E
Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Case No. 1801-02
Date: November 15, 2022
approximately 300’ north of a bus stop. The operator shall take reasonable action to ensure that vehicles are not queuing in the right-of-way including; a. Maintaining a minimum of one staff person at the pay kiosks during business hours.
b. Utilizing additional staff with mobile payment capabilit ies along the vehicle queue lane for collecting mobile payment and membership sign ups.
c. Directing patrons to the bypass lane in the event of a mechanical failure or other disruptions in service through the car wash tunnel or placing signage at the entry to the car was queue that the car wash is temporarily closed.
d. The applicant shall prohibit the queuing of vehicles prior to operating hours.
11. If substantiated complaints of excessive no ise or other nuisances including the queuing of vehicles in the right-of-way are received by the City, the applicant shall work cooperate with the Department of Development services to implement changes to the operation.
12. The use of outdoor speakers, including speakers on monitors and televisions shall be prohibited.
13. The applicant shall post signage at each vacuum station in forming patrons to be considerate of neighbors and keep radios turned off.
14. The applicant shall maintain the premises and abutting sidewalk and parkway free of litter. The applicant shall remove trash from the site and abutting right -of-way not less than two times a day.
15. The applicant shall coordinate with the school district on truancies. Staff shall be trained to report unaccompanied minors who are present during school hours to the school district contact.
16. Prior to permit issuance the applicant shall notify the abutting school and the Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development and Planning Department of the construction schedule as well as a contact information of a person on site who can respond to complaints regardin g construction activities . Proof of notification shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
17. The operator shall not permit vending machines for general merchandise including beverages and food (excluding items directly related to the car wash service provided are excluded)games, rides, etc. on the premise.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Case No. 1801-02
Date: November 15, 2022
18. The proposed project is located along a design ated Safe Route to Schoo l and approximately 300’ n orth of a bus stop. To ensure that pedestrians are accommodated, the applicant shall submit a pedestrian access and protection plan to the Department of Development Services and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The plan shall detail all pedestrian access closures and details for safe navigation around the project site during construction. The approved pedestrian access and protection plan shall be maintained on-site at all times during construction.
a. The Long Beach Unified School District Facilities Development and Planning D epartment and the principal of the abutting school shall be notified not less than ten working days prior to any lane or sidewalk closures along Long Beach Boulevard. As feasible, lane closures should occur outside of the busiest school traffic periods (after morning drop off and before afternoon pick up) or during school breaks to minimized pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle conflicts.
19. The applicant shall provide a landscape buffer along the east property that includes a hedge, berm, tree or other permitted landscape feature at least three feet in height to adequately screen the vehicle headlights.
20. The applicant shall comply with city’s landscape ordinance for water efficiency. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted as a separate plan check submittal concurrent with the plan check for the building. Building permits may be not issued until landscape plans are approved.
21. The applicant shall obtain permits for the installation of irrigation and tree wells along Long Beach Boulevard. Street trees shall be installed prior to certificate of occupancy.
22. The applicant shall construct a trash enclosure which shall be designed and provided for this project as per Section 21.46.080 of the Long Beach Municipal Code within nine months from the issuance of the business license for the use .
The designated trash area shall not abut a street or public walkway and shall be placed at an inconspicuous location on the lot.
23. The proposed use shall be subject to an annual inspection as required by the Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.25.412 for review of compliance w ith the conditions of approval. The applicant shall be required to pay an inspection fee as established by the City Council adopted fee schedule. The annual review shall be required at the time of the annual business license renewal.
24. Upon plan check submittal the applicant shall merge APN 7132-028-039 and 7132- 017 into a single lot . The lot tie or merger must be completed prior to permit issuance.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Case No. 1801-02
Date: November 15, 2022
25. The applicant shall have a reciprocal access agreement for ingress and egress purposes including exhibits from the adjoining lots (APN 7132-028-40 and 7132- 028-019) prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The covenant sh all be submitted at the time of plan chec k review and recorded prior to permit issuance.
26. The existing pole sign may be repurposed for on-site signage.
27. No signs are approved as part of this entitlement.
Standard Conditions:
28. This permit shall be invalid if the owner(s) and/or applicant(s) have failed to return written acknowledgment of their acceptance of the conditions of approval on the Conditions of Approval Acknowledgment Form supplied by the Planning Bureau.
This acknowledgment must be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of approval (final action date or, if in the appealable area of the Coastal Zone, 21 days after the local final action date).
29. If, for any reason, there is a violation of any of the conditions of this permit or if the use/operation is found to be detrimental to the surrounding community, including public health, safety or general welfare, environmental quality or quality of life, such shall cause the City to initiate revocation and terminati on procedures of all rights granted herewith.
30. In the event of transfer of ownership of the property involved in this application, the new owner shall be fully informed of the permitted use and development of said property as set forth by this permit toget her with all conditions that are a part thereof. These specific requirements must be recorded with all title conveyance documents at time of closing escrow.
31. This approval is required to comply with these conditions of approval as long as the use is on the subject site. As such, the site shall allow periodic re-inspections, at the discretion of city officials, to verify compliance. The property owner shall reimburse the City for the inspection cost as per the special building inspection specifications established by City Council ( Long Beach Municipal Code Section
21.25.212).
32. All conditions of approval must be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for plan review to Long Beach Development Services. These conditions must be printed on the site plan or a subsequent reference page.
33. All operational conditions of approval of this permit must be posted in a location visible to the public, in such a manner as to be readable when the use is open for Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Case No. 1801-02
Date: November 15, 2022
business.
34. The Director of Long Beach Development Services is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved design plans or to any of the conditions of approval if such modifications shall not significantly change/alter the approved design/project. Any major modifications shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, respectively.
35. All landscaped areas must be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Any dying or dead plants materials must be replaced with the minimum size and height plant(s) required by Chapter 21.42 (Landscapin g) of the Zoning Regulations. At the discretion of City officials, a yearly inspection shall be conducted to verify that all irrigation systems are working properly and that the landscaping is in good healthy condition. The property owner shall reimburse the City for the inspection cost as per the special building inspection specifications established by the City Council.
36. The property shall be developed and maintained in a neat, quiet, and orderly condition and operated in a manner so as not to be detrimental to adjacent properties and occupants. This shall encompass the maintenance of exterior facades of the building, designated parking areas serving the use, fences and the perimeter of the site (including all public parkways).
37. New exterior security bars, scissor gates, and roll-up doors applied to windows and pedestrian building entrances shall be prohibited. Existing unpermitted security bars, scissor gates applied to pedestrian building entrance must be removed.
38. Any graffiti found on site must be removed within 24 hours of its appearance.
39. All parking areas serving the site shall provide appropriate security lighting with light and glare shields so as to avoid any light intrusion onto adjacent or abutting residential buildings or neighborho ods pursuant to Section 21.41.259. Other security measures may be required to be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police.
40. The operator of the approved use shall prevent loitering in all parking and landscaping areas serving the use during and after hours of operation. The operator must clean the parking and landscaping areas of trash debris on a daily basis. Failure to do so shall be grounds for permit revocation. If loitering problems develop, the Director of Planning and Building may require additional preventative measures such as but not limited to, additional lighting.
41. All structures shall conform to the Long Beach Building Code requirements.
Notwithstanding this subject permit, all other required permits from the Building Bureau must be secured.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Case No. 1801-02
Date: November 15, 2022
42. Separate building permits shall be required for fences, retaining walls, flagpoles, and pole mounted yard lighting foundations.
43. Approval of this development project is expressly conditioned upon payment (prior to building permit issuance or prior to Certificate of Occupancy, as specified in the applicable Ordinance or Resolution for the specific fee) of impact fees, connection fees and other similar fees based upon additional facilities needed to accommodate new development at established Cit y service level standards, including, but not limited to, sewer capacity charges, Park Fees and Transportation Impact Fees.
44. The applicant shall file a separate plan check submittal to the Long Beach Fire Department for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
45. Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities are limited to the following (except for the pouring of concrete which may occur as needed):
a. Weekdays and federal holidays: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; b. Saturday: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.; and
c. Sundays: not allowed
46. Any unused curb cuts shall be replaced with full height curb, gutter and sidewalk and shall be reviewed, approved and constructed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works.
47. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Long Beach, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Long Beach or its agents, officers, or employees brought to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Long Beach, its advisory agencies, commissions, or legislative body concerning th e processing of the proposal/entitlement or any action relating to, or arising out of such approval. At the discretion of the City and wit h the approval of the City Attorney, a deposit of funds by the applicant may be required in an amount sufficient to cover the anticipated litigation costs.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
CLASS 3 (NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL STRUCTURES); AND
CLASS 32 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT) EXEMPTION DETERMINATION
5005 Long Beach Boulevard
(APN 7132-028-017, 7132-028-019, 7132-028-039, and 7132-028-040) Application No. (1801-02) (CUP 18-001)
CE-22-147
November 15, 2022
Section 15300 through 15333 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes certain classes of projects as categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA because they do not ordinarily result in a significant effect on the environment. The Project site is on one of four parcels totaling 1.48 -acres. The site is developed with a stand-alone restaurant and gas station with a mini mart. The project site is located within the Commercial Automobile- Oriented Zoning District and has a Neighborhood Serving Centers and Corridors -Low (NSC-L) General Plan PlaceType Designation. The area to be developed abuts the playground areas of 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 catty -corner to the site across Long Beach Boulevard.
T
he Project proposes to develop the existing parking area north of the mini mart with a 3,464-square-foot automated self-service car wash. The proposed car wash features a modern design with quality materials. The car wash tunnel would have a length of 100 feet and includes two drive- up lanes, each with a pay station and a queuing length of approximately 130 feet before each pay station. The proposed project includes 15 parking stalls for vacuuming. Access to the car wash would be from the existing southernmost curb cut along Long Beach Boulevard. The northerly curb cut will be closed, and a full height curb and sidewalk constructed in its place. Other site modifications include new landscaping, security cameras, and lighting. The car wash would operate between the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm daily (Attachment A- Plans).
The aforementioned project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 as a Class 3 new construction in an urbanized area not exceeded 10,000 square feet in size. The proposed project totals no more than 3,464 square feet and is located at 5005 Long Beach Boulevard in the City of Long Beach an urbanized area.
Additionally, analysis provides substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project also qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Attachment F
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
as a Class 32 urban infill development and would not have a significant effect on the environment.
(a) THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION AND ALL APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AS WELL AS WITH APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION AND REGULATIONS.
T
he site is located at the northwest corner of Long Beach Boulevard and Del Amo Boulevard. The site consists of multiple lots that total 66,551 square feet (1.52- acre) parcel. The site is currently developed with an existing restaurant, gas station and mini mart. The car wash would be located in the parking area on the north side of the mini mart.
T
he site has an underlying General Plan PlaceType designation of Neighborhood- Serving Center or Corridor-Low (NSC-L) which encourages low-rise, low-intensity mixed-use commercial centers and corridors designed to meet consumers’ daily needs for goods and services close to residential areas. The property is zoned Community Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) which is intended to provide retail and service uses for an entire community including convenience and comparison shopping for goods and associated services.
T
he 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 consistent.
UD St
rategy No. 15: Consider vacant parcels as infill opportunities.
T
his lot serves as a passive use for parking and is underutilized. The proposed car wash would redevelop this area of the lot with a car wash that would enhance the property with a contemporary building, landscaping and provide new job opportunities and add a new car wash service to the area.
P
olicy UD Policy UD 2 -3: Promote enhancement of the built environment through façade improvements, quality and context -sensitive infill development, and landscaping.
T
he proposed project would be context-sensitive: first, it would be located on a long- vacant commercial site adjacent to an existing gasoline station and mini -mart, and would complement that use. Other adjacent uses include an existing restaurant currently under renovation. The proposed car wash would be separated from the adjacent school to the north by an existing nine- foot-tall masonry wall, and the building itself is arranged to buffer the school from activity in the interior of the site.
Additionally, the main entrance and exit to the car wash are enclosed, the exit is
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
oriented toward Del Amo Boulevard, and the entrance is oriented to Long Beach Boulevard. The acoustical analyses prepared by BridgeNet determined the proposed car wash, as designed, would not result in any significant increase in existing noise levels on or adjacent to the site. Despite the location of the proposed car wash in an area with higher ambient noise levels, the project would comply with the standard noise thresholds in the Municipal Code. Additionally, t he proposed project makes improvements to the adjacent right of way through the closure of one curb cut, reducing the number of locations at which vehicles cross the sidewalk.
P
olicy UD 14-3: Allow new development projects to respond to their particular context and experiment with alternative development patterns while complementing their PlaceTypes.
P
olicy UD 14-5: Promote commercial center and corridor development compatibility with adjacent residential uses, including ensuring that project design and function minimizes the potential adverse impacts of vehicle access, parking and loading facilities, building massing, signage, lighting, trash enclosures, and noise generating uses and areas.
T
he project has been designed with a dual lane queue accommodating approximately 11 vehicles at on e time and includes a bypass lane. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn finds that the site configuration would accommodate the 95 th percentile queue of seven vehicles at one time, and conservatively assumes all vehicle trips to the project are unique and not shared with the existing gasoline station and mini-mart. Additional conditions will require that the applicant to maintain a staff person at the kiosk during business hours to trouble shoot any problems that may arise and further reduce opportunities for the traffic to spill over into the right-of-way.
As described above, t he proposed project includes context -sensitive uses and features, and will eliminate one of the existing curb cuts improving the pedestrian environment along this segment of Long Beach Boulevard which is part of the safe route to school.
LU
Policy 16-8: Require an acoustical analysis prior to project approval for projects subject to CEQA review, for all noise sensitive projects located in an area with noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. All new residential land uses shall be designed to maintain a standard of 45 dBA CNEL or less in building interiors, consistent with the General Plan. Noise reduction measures to achieve this noise level could include, but are not limited to, forced air ventilation so that windows can remain closed and/ or upgraded wall and window assemblies.
A
coustical analysis was completed by Bridgenet. The project has been designed to enclose the car wash exit and face the opening to the south away from the adjacent elementary school. This design change in addition to the construction o f sound absorbing materials would further reduce project noise levels, which already complied with the standard thresholds established in the Municipal Code.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
LU
Policy 18- 2: Enhance street corridors and spaces between buildings by incorporating small green areas, native and drought- tolerant landscaping and street trees.
La
ndscaping has been incorporated into the site design. Street trees will be required as a condition of approval. Landscaping will be designed to comply with the City’s landscape efficiency ordinance.
T
he established purpose of the Zoning Code includes protecting institutional uses such as the adjacent Dooley Elementary School from the intrusion of incompatible uses (LBMC 20.10.020).
A 9-f
oot-high perimeter masonry wall serves as a buffer between the school and car wash. The car wash tunnel is configured so that the exit is enclosed and faces away from the school. In addition to the configuration of the tunnel, the car wash would be constructed with additional sound absorbing materials that further reduce sound levels that would be experienced on the school property , and the location of the building would further buffer the school from activity on the project site and at the existing gasoline station and mini-mart to the south.
(b
) THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEN T OCCURS WITHIN CITY LIMITS ON A
PROJECT SITE OF NO MORE THAN FIVE ACRES SUBSTANTIALLY
SURROUNDED BY URBAN USES.
T
he project site is entirely within the city limits of Long Beach, on a site that is
1.52-acre in size, which is less than maximum five acres specified. The area to developed is presently a parking lot. The site abuts the playground areas of Dooley Elementary School to the north and west, a convenience store and drug store with a drive- through pharmacy (drive- through is currently closed) t o 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 catty-corner to the site across Long Beach Boulevard. These uses and areas above constitut e the existing environment prior to the project that will not change as a result of the project.
(
c) PROJECT SITE HAS NO VALUE AS HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED, RARE OR THREATENED SPECIES.
The pro
ject site is located within an urbanized area in the City of Long Beach. The site is developed with a restaurant, gas station, mini mart and surface parking lot.
The are a north of the mini mart that is to be developed with the car wash is
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
presently improved as as phalt-paved surface. The site has minimal ornamental landscaping and does not include any trees. This project would have a less than significant impact on endangered, rare, or threatened species or their habitat. New drought tolerant landscaping and trees will be provided as part of this project. (d
) APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS REL ATING TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY, OR WATER QUALITY.
T
echnical studies and subsequent clarifying responses were prepared for the proposed project for the topics of traffic, noise, air quality, and hazardous materials (Attachments B through E). Based on the analysis, and on compliance with the standard City requirements regarding runoff and water quality, t he project would not exceed established thresholds in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines to constitute an impact on the surrounding environment related to the topics above.
T
raffic
T
he project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic within the area or on the local streets as detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis , prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated March 2021 (Attachment B). The project would generate 738 daily trips, 64 morning peak hour trips and 74 evening peak hour trips. This assessment of daily trips is a worst-case scenario as it did not discount the number of trips for pass by/dual purpose trips that would likely occur with the adjacent gas station.
C
ity of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (June 2020), establish that Level of Service D as an acceptable threshold for operating conditions for intersections. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn evaluated key intersections and found that the existing level service was presently operating at a Level of Service F . In accordance with the City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (June 2020), even with the existing deficiency, the addition of project trips would not impose a significant impact on the study intersections of Del Amo Boulevard at Virginia Avenue, Del Amo Boulevard at Long Beach Boulevard.
The project involved local serving retail of less than 50,000 square feet and would not require further VMT analysis
T
he project incorporates two queueing lanes. Queuing capacity was evaluated based on similar facilities and the assessment found that typical Peak number of queued vehicles 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.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
Air Quality
T
he project will not result in any significant effects relating to air quality or greenhouse gas (GHG) as detailed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis for the Project prepared by Vista Environmental, October 26, 2020 (Attachment C ). The criteria air pollution and GHG emissions impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. This analysis found that implementation of the State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality and GHG emissions reductions regulations, including but not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 461 (Gasoline Dispensing Facilities), were adequate to limit criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors, and GHG emissions from the proposed project to less than significant levels. The project would have to comply with all regulatory compliance measures established including: 1) demolition, grading and construction activities in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403) ; 2) o dors:
compliance with provision of SCAQMD Rule 402; 3) engine idling in accordance with Section 2485 of Title 13 of California code of Regulations ; 4) emission standards in accordance with Section 93114 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations; and 5) architectural coatings in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Because the Project would be subject to all of the state regulatory compliance measures, the Project would not result in any significant air quality or GHG impacts.
N
oise
T
he project as designed would not result in any significant effects related to noise as detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Bridgenet (July 2022 and March 2020) (Attachment D and E). This analysis found that operation of the car wash through the project configuration and design construction w ould produce sound well below the established sound level s permitted by Chapter 8.80 of Title 8 of Long Beach Municipal Code regulating noise. Additionally , all construction activities would be required to comply with LBMC Chapter 8.80.202 regulations for construction. Through compliance with the design and regulations of the Lo ng Beach Municipal code the project all noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Water Quality
T
he proposed Project, like all other qualifying developments in the City must comply with the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) and other applicable regulatory requirements to protect stormwater quality and prevent runoff in excess of existing conditions.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
As reflected in the project description, the Project Site entirely comprises impermeable asphalt surfacing. The Project is a non-residential development that will require a building permit, and the proposed site plan would modify more than 500 square feet. of impervious surface area (Attachment A); therefore, the Project must comply with the City’s Low Impact Development, Best Management Practices Design Manual (the “BMP Manual”). (LBMC Section 18.74.030, subd. A.1 and B.) The City will verify calculations and Project compliance—as with all projects — through the LID plan review process. (Section 18.74.040).
T
he Project must evaluate the use of infiltration, capture, evapotranspiration, treatment, and/or reuse of stormwater, unless one or more of those methods are demonstrated to be technically infeasible according to standards established in the BMP Manual. Further, the capture, use, and/or treatment mechanisms must meet certain minimum size or capacity requirements. Table 3.2 of the BMP Manual lists the site-specific source control measures and their corresponding design features or elements to manage, capture, and treat stormwater flows. Notably, and as stated above, the Project Site surface entirely comprises asphalt paving and is entirely impermeable. Consequently, the Project will not increase impermeable area and therefore will not increase stormwater flow volumes. Other required elements of the program include percolation testing to establish whether the Project site can feasibly accommodate infiltration, or whether alternative measures of capture and treatment are warranted. Table 4.1 in the BMP Manual provides the criteria for infiltration as a best management practice (“BMP”), and Appendix D provides the volume calculation and design guidelines for infiltration. Table 4.2 provides the criteria for capture and use as a BMP. In addition to identifying BMPs, the BMP Manual provides design criteria and requirements, construction requirements, and operation and maintenance requirements. (See, e.g., sections
4.4 and Appendix D [infiltration], 4.5 [capture and use], and 4.6 and Appendix E [biofiltration] for discussions of the specific requirements of different types of BMPs.) Additionally, where complete on- site compliance is not demonstrated, developers must pay an offsite mitigation fee to fund improvements in other locations in the City, within the same sub-watershed as the Project, at which BMP installation and operation are feasible and would achieve, “at least the same level of water quality protection as if all of the runoff was retained [on the Project site].” (LBMC Section 18.74.050; BMP Manual section 5.1).
B
ecause the Project would be subject to all of the City’s regulatory compliance measures, would need to demonstrate compliance with numeric standards regarding capture, retention, treatment, and reuse— as well as treatment and pollution reductions, the Project would not result in any significant water quality impact.
T
herefore, as detailed in the attached technical analyses, approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
(
e) THE SITE CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ALL REQUIRED UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES.
T
he project site is presently developed with a commercial building and a gas station, a similar condition to the proposed project. The site is currently served by utilities and public services, such as Southern California Edison (electricity), Long Beach Energy Resources (natural gas), and Long Beach Water Department. While the proposed 3,464 square-foot car wash building increases the total building area on site, the Project can adequately be served by utilities by way of new water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas connection, that would be undertaken as part of the building permitting process.
C
EQA Section 15300.2 provides specific instance where exceptions to the established Classes of Exemptions including the Class 3 and Class 32 - Infill Exemption are superseded; none of those conditions were found to apply to this project.
(
a) LOCATION. CLASSES 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 11 ARE QUALIFIED BY CONSIDERATION OF WHERE THE PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED – A
PROJECT THAT IS ORDINARILY INSIGNIFICANT IN ITS IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT MAY IN A PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENT BE SIGNIFICANT. THEREFORE, THESE CLASSES ARE CONSIDERED TO
APPLY ALL INSTANCES, EXCEPT WHERE THE PROJECT MAY IMPACT ON
AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OF HAZARDOUS OR CRITICAL
CONCERN WHERE DESIGNATED, PRECISELY MAPPED, AND OFFICIALLY
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO LAW BY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL
AGENCIES.
The site of the new car wash is currently improved with asphalt parking lot. The site abuts two other lots developed with a gas station, mini mart and restaura nt that will be used to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the site. A review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s G eoTracker database shows that there are no active LUST clean- up sites within 1,000-foot radius of the site. H owever, there is a closed case on for LUST on the gas station portion of the project site.
The case was closed in October of 2013.
(b) CUMULATIVE IMPACT. ALL EXEMPTIONS FOR THESE CLASSES ARE
INAPPLICABLE WHEN THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF SUCCESSIVE
PROJECTS OF T HE SAME TYPE IN THE SAME PLACE, OVER TIME IS SIGNIFICANT.
T
echnical studies were prepared for the proposed project for the topics of traffic, noise, air quality, and hazardous materials, see Attachments B through E. All reports concluded that the project would not exceed established CEQA thresholds to constitute an impact on the surrounding environment related to the topics above.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
There are no projects in the vicinity of the project site that would result in cumulative impact with respect to traffic, noise, water quality and utilities and public services.
(
c) SIGNIFICANT EFFECT. A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SHALL NOT BE USED
FOR AN ACTIVITY WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT
THE ACTIVITY WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
The site is currently developed with a commercial building and gas station within an urbanized area in the City of Long Beach. The site is surrounded by urban uses (restaurant, school, gas statio n/convenience store, drug store) and is flat in topography. There is no sensitive habitat on the site or any other site conditions that would represent unusual circumstances. The site location would not represent an exception to this exemption.
(d) SCENIC HIGHWAYS. A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SHALL NOT BE USED
FOR A PROJECT WHICH MAY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO SCENIC
RESOURCES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TREES, HISTORIC
BUILDINGS, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, OR SIMILAR RESOURCES, WITHIN A HIGHWAY OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY. THIS
DOES NOT APPLY TO IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED AS
MITIGATION BY AN ADOPTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR CERTIFIED EIR.
T
he Proposed Project is located in an established commercial area at the intersection of two major roadways, and would have no impact as it relates to substantially damaging scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway due to the fact that there are no State-designed scenic highways in the City of Long Beach. There are no protected trees or unique geologic feat ures on the site. The proposed project would not damage any scenic resources within an officially design ated scenic highway.
(
e) HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SHALL NOT BE
USED FOR A PROJECT LOCATED ON A SITE WHICH IS INCLUDED ON ANY LIST COMPILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 65962.5 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
The site of the new car wash is currently improved with asphalt parking lot. The site abuts two other lots developed with a gas station, mini mart and restaurant that will be used to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the site. A review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s GeoTracker database shows that there are no active LUST clean- up sites within 1,000 -foot radius of the site. However, there is a closed LUST case on the gas station portion of the project site due to
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT
Application 1801-02-November 15, 2022
potential contamination of aquifer for drinking water supply. The case was closed in October of 2013 and all monitoring wells removed in December of 2013. (f) HISTORICAL RESOURCES. A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SHALL NOT BE
USED FOR A PROJECT WHICH MAY CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.
There are no known historical resources located on the project site and the current development is not designated as a historic landmark or located within a historic district. The Project would not affect a historical resource.
Attachments:
A – Plans
B - Traffic Impact Assessment for the Car Wash Development Project in the City of Long Beach (Kimley Horn, March 2021)
C – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study, (Rincon Consultants, Inc. June 2021)
D – Revised Noise Analysis (BridgeNet International, July 2022) E – Noise Analysis (BridgeNet International, March 2020)
Attachment A
Traffic Impact Analysis
for the:
Car Wash Development Project
In the City of Long Beach
Prepared for:
A & S Engineering, Inc.
March, 2021
Attachment B
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.
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 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.
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.
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,
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
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.
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..
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 C
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.
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.
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