Long Beach City Council
January 24, 2023

CITY OF
LONG
Development Services Department
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3'' Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-5237
January 24, 2023

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

H-15
Receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider the applicant's appeal by SM Car Wash (APL22-005); Adopt a Resolution adopting and certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND 06- 22) and making findings of fact;
Declare an Ordinance amending the Land Use District Map (Zoning Map) by amending portions of Part 10 of said map to approve and implement a Zone Change (ZCHG20- 009) from Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low-density Multi-Family Residential, small lot (R-3-S) to Community R-4-N Commercial (CCN), read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading; and, Deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP20-003) for a new 3,278-square-foot detached automated car wash along with two ancillary buildings, located at 1911 East Pacific Coast Highway in the CCN Zoning Districts. (District 6)

DISCUSSION
On November 3, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this project and denied the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and recommended the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve a Zone change (4-0, with three commissioners absent) (Attachment A).

The project site is an approximately 24,000-square-foot site comprised of three legal lots located at 1911 East Pacific Coast Highway. The corner lot has frontage along Pacific Coast Highway to the south and Gardenia Avenue to the west. A 12-foot-wide alley borders the property to the east (Attachment B). The site is split-zoned Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S). Based on Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 21.32.020(0)(1 ), the CHW Zoning District is a commercial use district for mixed scale commercial uses located along major arterial streets and regional traffic corridors. Additionally, based on LBMC Section 21.31.020(K), the R-3-S Zoning District is a

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

three-family residential district specifically for multi-family development on smaller lots.

Surrounding uses include a gas station, tire shop, and residential uses.

Currently, the project site is developed with a 3,296-square-foot restaurant, Los Potros, and associated paved surface parking lot. The site is currently fenced off from Gardenia Avenue along the western boundary. Existing residential uses to the north are separated from the site by an approximately three-foot high masonry block wall and additional chain link fencing with slats. There is minimal landscaping on-site.

Project Proposal
The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing restaurant building and surface parking lot to construct a 3,278-square-foot, one-story, car wash building, equipped with standard car wash tunnel equipment. In addition to the 100-foot wash tunnel, the building includes an area for mechanical/electrical equipment and storage (Attachment C). A drive-through lane would be constructed to direct vehicles entering the site from a new driveway along Gardenia Avenue, along the northern property line to a pay station, then southerly to enter the car wash tunnel.

Vehicles would exit the southerly end of the car wash building and exit the site via an unnamed alley or through a new driveway onto East Pacific Coast Highway. Vehicles also have the option to park in one of 18 self-service vacuum parking spaces, equipped with one vacuum per space.

A new six and a half-foot high decorative masonry wall would be constructed along the northerly property line adjacent to the residential use. The proposed site improvements include landscaping along the property perimeter. The other building on-site located near the southwest corner of the property contains the vacuum room and a restroom. The proposed car wash would operate between 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. The site improvements include new night lighting and surveillance cameras; increasing security on the property. In addition, the operator intends to contract a 24 hour a day professional security company to monitor the site.

Requested Entitlements and Recommended Actions
The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Zone Change and acted to deny the CUP for the car wash at this location. Each entitlement and the . Planning Commission's recommendation is discussed below.

Zone Change: The proposal to develop a car wash requires the approval of a zone change because the current R-3-S zoning designation of the northern most lot of the project site would not permit a car wash use. Additionally, the CHW zoning along Pacific Coast Highway is not fully consistent with the adopted General Plan Land Use Element (LUE). Therefore, a zone change would be required to allow for a car wash use, and required findings must be made to support such a zone change (Attachment D). Upon the advice of staff, the applicant requested a Zone Change to Community Commercial (CCN) Zoning District, a mixed-use zoning district (Attachment E). The LUE PlaceType for the property is Neighborhood Serving Corridor or Center-Moderate (NSC-M). The NSC-M PlaceType is one of the most permissive mixed-use PlaceTypes in the General Plan. NSC-M has been applied to transit-rich locations along traditionally commercial corridors in the City of Long Beach (City) to encourage a range of

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

compatible, neighborhood-scale multi-family residential and commercial uses that promote walkability, access to neighborhood services and shopping while creating the capacity for the City to meet its housing obligations. A variety of commercial uses are encouraged to meet consumers' daily needs for goods and services, including but not limited to restaurants, cafes, retail shops, financial institutions, fitness centers and other daily conveniences within walking distance from residential uses The NSC-M PlaceType has a 1.0 to 1.5 floor area ratio for non­ residential uses, and a maximum residential density of 54 units per acre (e.g., moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings), and a general maximum building height limit of seven stories. NSC-M encourages compact, pedestrian-oriented development and discourages large buildings adjacent to single-family homes without proper transitions.

The majority of the project site is currently zoned CHW, a commercial-only zone that does not allow residential uses and does not fully implement the intent of the mixed-use nature of the NSC-M PlaceType as described above. This zoning designation is still in place from the previous LUE, as the subject site has not yet been rezoned to implement the 2019 LUE.

Development of the proposed project would not be possible under the existing split zoning, because the R-3-S zone prohibits car washes. Based on the LUE, "PlaceTypes and Zoning Districts Consistency Matrix LU-6'' (page 170), City staff reviewed several zoning districts which for their appropriateness to this site. Ultimately, the CCN Zoning District was found to be the most appropriate mixed-use zone based on density, intensity and the applicant's proposal for a car wash. The CCN Zoning District permits both commercial and residential uses and still requires a CUP approval to operate a car wash as proposed.

As additional background, this segment of Pacific Coast Highway is within the boundaries of the "Zone In: City Core" (City Core) rezoning effort currently underway by City staff. This is one of several efforts underway to update the Zoning Code and to rezone properties consistent with the General Plan. Based on the General Plan as well as local community feedback and technical work, this rezoning effort aims to improve access to certain commercial uses used daily, encourage pedestrian-friendly design, improve the quality and safety of streets through design and active uses, and encourage the use of multimodal transportation. However, as this rezoning effort is underway, the project is not subject to these future zoning regulations.

The Zone Change request was found to be consistent with the General Plan objectives and the General Plan NSC-M Place Type. The rezoning also places the site under a single zoning district to facilitate a cohesive redevelopment of the site in the future. Therefore, even though the Planning Commission made a recommendation to deny the CUP as described in further detail below, the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Planning Commission explained that unified zoning across allowed for by the Zone Change and based on all of the findings being made, results in a broader range of community-serving uses is desirable regardless of the merits of this particular car wash proposal. Justification for the Zone Change is discussed in detail in the Zone Change findings. The Zone Change must be adopted by Ordinance, which requires City Council approval.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Certain types of land uses, like car washes, due to the nature of the use, require a CUP. The CUP process allows for review of each individual case against a set of required findings so that the Planning Commission can determine if the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses, can be made compatible with conditions of approval, or is incompatible. In order to grant a CUP, the decision-maker must also make a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The area of the lot which is proposed to be developed with the automated car wash is located on the north end of the site and is currently developed with parking. The car wash queuing lane would be offset five feet from the northernmost property line adjacent to an existing apartment building on the abutting property. The apartments would be separated by a six and a half-foot -high wall along the north perimeter wall. The applicant has submitted an Economic and Qualitative Impact Study in support of the redevelopment of the site with a car wash (Attachment F). The car wash would replace an aging building with new modern buildings and add including landscaping along the perimeter of the property. The proposed improvements would result in a net increase in property taxes received due to the sites redevelopment; increasing the amount received from $15,464 to $30,391 annually. Another project benefit is the employment of approximately 10 individuals at the car wash on an on-going basis. While there are some economic benefits and aesthetic improvements that the car wash development would have, that is one of many factors that should be considered in context of the required CUP findings.

The Planning Commission found that the proposed car wash design would intensify conflicts between the existing residential parcel to the north and the property subject by locating the car wash queue lane within five feet of a residential property line in. This particular design and layout conflicts with the stated goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code to: 1) buffer sensitive uses ; 2) encourage the redevelopment of parcels with poor land use utilization, and 3) ensure neighborhoods are contain a variety of uses as summarized in the following table (Attachment G ).

Table 1 Cup General Plan Consistency Review
Policy/Strategy Number Policy/Strategy Finding
LU 1-10
Land Use Element (LU)
Encourage the redevelopment
of parcels with poor land
utilization such as single-use
commercial structures on
parcels over 5,000 square
feet.

The site is currently developed
with a single-use 3,296
commercial structure. The
proposed CUP would result in
the redevelopment of the site
with a single primary building, a
carwash tunnel, and two
ancillary buildings totaling
3,760 square feet on a 24,083-
square-foot lot. This results in
a FAR of just 0.15 percent on a
24,083-square-foot lot on a
major high transit quality
corridor. The resulting car
wash and planned landscape

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

LU 9-1 Protect neighborhoods from
the encroachment of
incompatible activities or land
uses that may have negative
impacts on residential living
environments.

LU 10-1 Ensure neighborhoods contain
a variety of functional attributes
that contribute to residents'
day-to-day living, including
schools, parks and commercial
and public spaces.
improvements would
immediately would improve
the aesthetics of the site but
would remain an
underutilization of the lot in
terms of development potential
for 33 new residential dwelling
units or other by-right
commercial use with a floor
area up to 36,124 square
feet.

The project will develop a
commercial site into an
automated carwash
development in which would not
protect the adjacent
neighborhood from the
increased noise and oollution.

The CUP would allow for a new
car wash service in the
area. The nearest automated
car wash is approximately 0.3
miles to the east at 1430 E.

Pacific Coast Hwy. This
particular service is already
available in the area.

The Planning Commission also received extensive public testimony that the proposed use was not desired, would be detrimental to surrounding uses and that automobile-oriented uses were overconcentrated in the surrounding community. Balancing all the testimony and evidence (Attachments H and I), the Planning Commission found that not all the required findings regarding compatibility and consistency with the surrounding uses and General Plan could affirmatively be made in support of the CUP for the car wash. Therefore, the Planning Commission denied the CUP request on the basis that the required findings could not be made. This denial is specific to this proposed car wash design on this specific lot and is not binding over other potential designs or locations as may be contemplated in the future. In contrast, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Zone Change and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

In summary, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Zone Change but did not approve the CUP. The Commission found that the Zone Change as a standalone request aligns with the NSC-M PlaceType. The rezoning also places the site under a single zoning district to facilitate a cohesive redevelopment of the site in the future; although not for the proposed car wash as the CUP for was not found suitable at this location.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

Appeal
Within the ten-day appeal period an applicant appeal was filed (APL22-005) (Attachment J) appealing the denial of the CUP. The appellant asserted concern that the Planning Commission erred in its determination that the project conflicts with the City's General policies including environmental justice policies, that there is an over-concentration of car washes and other auto­ oriented uses including gas stations and drive throughs in the vicinity, and in determining a residential use was potentially feasible on the project site.

The Planning Commission considered the technical studies and environmental analysis of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and also considered the relevant policies and requirements related to housing, pollution burden, buffering of sensitive uses, and supporting the development of a variety of community serving businesses. The Commission did not deny the project based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related studies' findings or contribution to cumulative impacts. Rather the Planning Commission, within its discretionary authority, found the car wash use at the location to be an undesirable use due to incompatibility with adjacent structures and uses and the inconsistency with General Plan goals and policies. The Planning Commission found there to be a sufficient number of car washes, with two existing car washes within 1,344 linear feet (0.3 miles) of the site to satisfy this community need in the area.

This case, similar to other CUP applications for car washes, requires a careful balancing by the City Council without a clear-cut pre-determined answer. The City Council should consider the environmental burden of placing another auto-oriented use in an over-concentrated neighborhood as well as the opportunity cost of placing a use with limited floor area, limited employment and no housing on a major mixed-use corridor identified in the General Plan. The City Council should however also consider the materials submitted by the applicant, that the project will have some employment and fiscal benefits, that in the short and medium term no other ( or superior) project is likely in this location and that denial of this request could result in continued disrepair of this site and blight in the surrounding community.

The City Council in its adjudicatory capacity is tasked with reviewing this appeal "de nova" and can take action to deny the project, approve, or conditionally approve the project as a whole or in part in accordance with the LBMC CUP findings. As no single project can implement all goals and policies of the General Plan, the City Council should consider whether there are merits of the appeal and the policy tradeoffs inherent in this application, as there are a variety of policies and considerations that are appropriate to consider from the General Plan, including the CEQA findings, in this case. Upholding the Planning Commission's denial could result in the continuation of the existing restaurant and aging building for an unknown period of time.

Public Hearing Notice
A notice of public hearing was mailed on January 9, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.21 of the LBMC. A notice of public hearing was also published in the Long Beach

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

Press-Telegram on January 9, 2023, also in accordance with the requirements of Chapter

21.21. No public comments were received at the time at which this report was written.

Environmental Review
Pursuant to the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND 06-22) (Attachment K - IS/MND) has been prepared for the project and finds that, by implementing identified mitigation measures for Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources, the project will not result in significant effects to the environment. The IS/MND was circulated for a 30-day public review period between June 1 and June 30, 2022.

Since public circulation, the City identified an administrative update to the proposed project description in the Draft IS/MND. Potential impacts and revisions resulting from the modification to the previously analyzed project are presented in an Errata memo which was issued on September 30, 2022 (Attachment L - Errata Memo). The revisions represent minor modifications to the previously analyzed project and do not change the conclusions presented in the Draft IS/MND. Overall, the revised project would not create any new potentially significant impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required.

The preparation and public availability of this IS/MND has been carried out in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt and certify IS/MND 06-22.

This matter was reviewed by Deputy City Attorney Erin Weesner-McKinley on January 5, 2023 and by Revenue Management Officer Geraldine Alejo on December 21, 2022.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
The Development Services Department is required to transmit the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council within 60 days of positive action by the Planning Commission, per Section 21.25: 103 of the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission made a positive recommendation on this project's zone change and denied the CUP on November 3, 2022. However, the City Council meeting on January 24, 2023 was the first available date for a public hearing.

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.

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
January 24, 2023

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Approve recommendation.
zz:;::d·k~
CHRISTOPHER KOO~

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION

ORDINANCE

A- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
8 - VICINITY MAP

C - PLANS & PHOTOS

D - ZONE CHANGE FINDINGS

E - ZONE CHANGE MAP

F - CUP FINDINGS

G - SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION MATERIALS

H - PUBLIC COMMENT CORRESPONDENCE

I-MINUTES

J -APPLICANT APPEAL

K-IS/MND

L- ERRATA MEMO
APPROVED:

THOMAS B. MODICA

CITY MANAGER

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Star Express
Car Wash Project
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Long Beach
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Contact: Mr. Alex Muldrow
562.570.6607
PREPARED BY:

Michael Baker International, Inc.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Ms. Frances Yau, AICP
949.472.3505
June 2022
JN 186356
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................ 1-2

2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Surrounding Uses ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Phasing and Construction .............................................................................................................. 2-7

2.6 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................... 2-9

3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-3

4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 4.2-1

4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.8 Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................................................4.9-1

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1

4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4.16-1

4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 4.17-1

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4.18-1

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1

4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 4.20-1

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 4.21-1

4.22 References ................................................................................................................................ 4.22-1

4.23 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................... 4.23-1

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 ii Table of Contents

5.0 Consultant Recommendation....................................................................................................................5-1

6.0 Lead Agency Determination ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis
Appendix B Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report
Appendix C Noise Study
Appendix D Trip Generation Analysis
Appendix E AB 52 Consultation Documentation

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 2-3 Proposed Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 2-5 Exhibit 2-4 Building Elevations ......................................................................................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 2-5 Conceptual Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................... 2-8

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Proposed Development .................................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 4.1-1 Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis ............................................... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis ...................................... 4.1-5 Table 4.3-1 Project-Generated Construction Emissions ................................................................................. 4.3-6 Table 4.3-2 Project-Generated Operational Emissions .................................................................................. 4.3-8 Table 4.3-3 Localized Emissions Significance .............................................................................................. 4.3-11 Table 4.6-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ............................................................................ 4.6-4 Table 4.6-2 General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis ........................................................................ 4.6-7 Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 4.8-7 Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ..................................................................... 4.8-9 Table 4.8-3 2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis ..................................................................... 4.8-11 Table 4.11-1 General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis ............................................................ 4.11-2 Table 4.11-2 CHW Zone Development Standards Consistency Analysis ...................................................... 4.11-5 Table 4.13-1 City of Long Beach Noise Limits ................................................................................................ 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2 Minimum Daytime Ambient Traffic Noise Levels and Adjusted Noise Limits ............................. 4.13-5

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 iii Table of Contents
Table 4.13-3 Temporary Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Property Lines......................................4.13-7 Table 4.13-4 Anticipated Traffic Noise Increases with Project-Generated Traffic........................................... 4.13-8 Table 4.13-5 Calculated Noise Levels for Proposed Equipment – Current Design ........................................ 4.13-9 Table 4.13-6 Calculated Cumulative Noise Impacts at Surrounding Property Lines .................................... 4.13-10 Table 4.17-1 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 4.17-3 Table 4.19-1 Landfills Serving the City ........................................................................................................... 4.19-4

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 iv Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 v Table of Contents

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL APPENDICES ON CD

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 vi Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 1-1 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Star Express Car Wash Project (herein referenced as the “project”) involves the demolition of an existing on-site restaurant and associated surface parking lot and construction of an automated express car wash facility with approximately five employees per shift with two shifts per day. Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Long Beach (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.

1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Long Beach, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) for that project. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080, Public Resources Code).

The environmental documentation, which is ultimately approved and/or certified by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.

1.2 PURPOSE
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study.

Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:

A description of the project, including the location of the project; Identification of the environmental setting;
Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and
The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.

1.3 CONSULTATION
As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Long Beach) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies on the environmental documentation to be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the City will consider their recommendations when formulating the preliminary findings. Following

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 1-2 Introduction
completion of this Initial Study, the City will initiate formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.

1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, City Hall is currently only open to the public on an appointment basis.

As such, these documents are available for review online on the following websites.

City of Long Beach General Plan (updated 2019). The purpose of the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) is to provide a general, comprehensive, and long-range guide for community decision-making.

The General Plan consists of the following elements, adopted on various dates: Land Use (2019); Urban Design (2019); Housing (2014); Mobility (2013); Historic Preservation (2010); Open Space and Recreation (2002); Public Safety (2002); Air Quality (1996); Seismic Safety (1988); Local Coastal Program (1980); Noise (1975); and Conservation (1973). The individual elements identify goals and policies for existing and future conditions within the City. Available for review here:
https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/.

Long Beach Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. ORD-21-0038, enacted November 16, 2021).

The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) consists of regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with the General Plan goals and policies. Title 20, Subdivisions, and Title 21, Zoning, of the LBMC identifies land uses permitted and prohibited according to the zoning designation of particular parcels. The purpose of the zoning regulations within the LBMC is to promote and preserve the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the people of Long Beach. Available for review here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 2-1 Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Regionally, the project site is located in the southern portion of the County of Los Angeles and in the central portion of the City of Long Beach (City); refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. Locally, the project site is located at 1911 East Pacific Coast Highway (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 7216-032-021). The 24,083-square foot site is bound by residential uses to the north, an alley to the east, East Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Gardenia Avenue to the west.

2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, the project site is developed with a 3,296-square foot restaurant (Los Potros) and associated paved surface parking lot; Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. The restaurant provides indoor and outdoor seating, and operates from approximately 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Wednesdays through Sundays and 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays. The site is currently fenced off from Gardenia Avenue along the western boundary. Existing residential uses to the north are separated from the site by an approximately three-foot high masonry block wall and additional fencing.

There is minimal to no landscaping on-site. A wooden pole with overhead utility lines and an electricity transformer are located at the center of the site and connects to other adjacent wooden utility poles off-site.

According to the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element, the site has a PlaceType designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-M). The NSC-M PlaceType encourages compact development and discourages large buildings adjacent to single-family homes. Uses may include schools, parks, daycare, senior care, police and fire stations, libraries and similar facilities. The NSC-M PlaceType has a 1.0 to 1.5 floor area ratio (FAR), maximum residential density of 54 units per acre (e.g., moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings), and a general maximum building height limit of seven stories. It is acknowledged that height limits can vary within PlaceType areas. Based on General Plan Map LU-8, Heights, the project site has a five- story maximum building height limit.

According to the City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map, dated September 2021, the project site is zoned Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S). Based on Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 21.32.020(D)(1), the CHW district is a commercial use district for mixed scale commercial uses located along major arterial streets and regional traffic corridors. Additionally, based on LBMC Section

21.31.020(K), the R-3-S district is a three-family residential district specifically for multi-family development on smaller lots.

2.3 SURROUNDING USES
Surrounding land uses to the project site are primarily comprised of commercial and residential uses. The surrounding land uses include the following:

North: Multi-family residences are located to the north. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned R-3-S; East: An alley is located to the east. Further east across the alley are commercial uses (i.e., Montero Trucking, Guadalajara Tires) and an ARCO gas station. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW and Neighborhood Commercial and Residential (CNR);

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 2-4 Project Description
South: East Pacific Coast Highway is located to the south. Further south are commercial uses (i.e., Monterey Motel and Never No Thrift Store) and single- and multi-family residences. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW; and
West: Gardenia Avenue is located to the west. Further west are single- and multi-family residences and commercial uses (i.e., Coin-Op Laundry, La Chula Market). Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW and R-3-S.

2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The project proposes to demolish the existing on-site restaurant and associated surface parking lot, and construct a staffed, automated express car wash facility. A 3,278-square foot one-story express car wash building would be constructed, equipped with standard car wash tunnel equipment. In addition to the 100-foot wash tunnel, the building would include an area for mechanical/electrical equipment and storage. A drive-through lane would be constructed to direct vehicles entering the site from a new driveway along Gardenia Avenue northerly to a pay station, then southerly to enter into the car wash tunnel. Vehicles would exit the southerly end of the car wash building and either exit the site via a driveway towards the eastern alley or a new driveway onto East Pacific Coast Highway. Vehicles also have the option to park in one of 18 self-service vacuum parking spaces, equipped with one vacuum per space.

Additionally, the project would construct an approximately 355-square foot one-story building consisting of a restroom, trash enclosure, and vacuum room in the southeast corner of the site, as well as a 127-square foot one-story monitoring room near the entrance (northern end) of the car wash tunnel; refer to Table 2-1, Proposed Development, and Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Site Plan.

Table 2-1
Proposed Development
Proposed Buildings Size (square feet) Height
Car Wash Tunnel 3,278 28 feet
Restroom, Trash, and Vacuum
Storage Building 355 16 feet, 6 inches
Monitoring Room 127 13 feet, 3 inches
Total 3,760 square feet
As previously mentioned, car wash operations would include on-site staffing of approximately five employees per shift with two shifts per day. Anticipated operating hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Proposed structures would range between approximately 13 to 28 feet in height; refer to Exhibit 2-4, Building Elevations. The proposed buildings would be constructed of metal clad exterior wall panels, metal doors, and clear glass. Architectural features would include an aluminum canopy over the wash tunnel, aluminum louvers, wall sconces, corrugated metal sheets, and illuminated individual channel wall signs. Additionally, the buildings’ exterior color palette would include copper, white, silver, and red.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 2-7 Project Description

LANDSCAPING
The proposed project would provide landscaping improvements, including a variety of ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover; refer to Exhibit 2-5, Conceptual Landscape Plan. The street frontage along East Pacific Coast Highway and the western perimeter along Gardenia Avenue would be planted with a variety of shrubs (e.g., fortnight lily, heavenly bamboo, bougainvillea, and springtime Indian Hawthorn). The area adjacent to the drive-through lane would be landscaped with Brisbane box trees, dwarf strawberry tree shrubs, and desert museum Palo Verde along with other shrubs and ground cover. Approximately six existing street trees and one existing palm tree would be protected in place, while one existing palm tree along Gardenia Avenue would be removed. Additionally, it is acknowledged that the wooden pole with overhead utility lines in the center of the site would be relocated as part of the project.

FENCES AND WALLS
The existing fencing along Gardenia Avenue would be removed. A new approximately 6.5-foot high decorative masonry wall would be constructed along the northern site perimeter as a barrier between the project site and adjacent residential uses, as required under Project Design Feature PDF-1; refer to Section 4.13, Noise. Additionally, the proposed project would construct five-foot high metal fencing (wrought iron or tube steel) on the eastern perimeter adjacent to the alley.

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Site access would be provided via one full access driveway along Gardenia Avenue; refer to Exhibit 2-3. Vehicles would enter the driveway and travel along the western and northern site perimeters of the project site into the car wash tunnel. Upon exiting the tunnel, vehicles have the option to either turn right and park in one of the vacuum stations, or exit the project site through two exit-only driveways along the eastern alley or East Pacific Coast Highway. Directions and signage would be installed on-site to guide vehicles through the site. As stated, the proposed project would include 18 self-vacuum parking station (including one accessible parking space), each equipped with one vacuum.

SITE DRAINAGE
The proposed project would install a new drainage and stormwater collection system on-site to collect stormwater and non-reclaimed car wash water runoff from the facility. An underground stormwater storage tank would be installed under the parking area. Multiple catch basins and drainage inlets would be installed on-site to collect runoff from the car wash activities. Landscaping along the site perimeter would also collect and permeate runoff into the earth.

RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM
The project would also utilize a reclaimed water system that reuses water that has already been used in the car wash and is recovered by the drainage system in the wash bay. Specifically, the reclaimed water system would utilize cyclone separators to remove solids, oils, and grease, and one of two methods (air sparger or enzyme/ozone addition) to control odor and biological growth. Air spargers add oxygen to the tank water to control anaerobic bacteria growth while enzyme/ozone addition kills bacteria. The reclaimed water system is designed to treat approximately 30 to 120 gallons per minute of reclaimed water and typically allows for the treatment and reuse of approximately 60 to 85 percent of water on-site. The remaining water would be treated and discharged into the City’s sewer system.

2.5 PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION
The project would be constructed in a single phase for a duration of approximately eight months. Construction of the project would include demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The proposed earthwork would require approximately 417 cubic yards of cut to be exported off-site.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 2-9 Project Description

2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would require permits and approvals from the City of Long Beach prior to construction. These permits and approvals are identified below and may change as the project entitlement process proceeds.

California Environmental Quality Act Clearance;
Site Plan Review;
Conditional Use Permit;
Zone Change; and
Lot Merger.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 2-10 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3-1 Initial Study Checklist

3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

3.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title:

Star Express Car Wash Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Long Beach
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Alex Muldrow
Planner
562.570.6607

4. Project Location:

Regionally, the project site is located in the southern portion of the County of Los Angeles and in the central portion of the City of Long Beach. Locally, the project site is located at 1911 East Pacific Coast Highway (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 7216-032-021). The 24,083-square foot site is bound by residential uses to the north, an alley to the east, East Pacific Coast Highway to the south, and Gardenia Avenue to the west.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

SM Wash, LLC
Francis Y. Park, Applicant Representative
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 405
Los Angeles, CA 90010

6. General Plan Designation:

According to the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a PlaceType designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-M).

7. Zoning:

According to the City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map, the project site is zoned Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S).

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3-2 Initial Study Checklist

8. Description of the Project:

The project proposes to demolish the existing on-site restaurant and associated surface parking lot, and construct a staffed, automated car wash facility. A 3,278-square foot one-story car wash building would be constructed, equipped with standard car wash tunnel equipment. In addition to the 100-foot wash tunnel, the building would include an area for mechanical/electrical equipment and storage. A drive-through lane would be constructed to direct vehicles entering the site from a new driveway along Gardenia Avenue northerly to a pay station, then southerly to enter into the car wash tunnel. Vehicles would exit the southerly end of the car wash building and either exit the site via a driveway towards the eastern alley or a new driveway onto East Pacific Coast Highway. Vehicles also have the option to park in one of 18 self-service vacuum parking spaces, equipped with one vacuum per space. Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 2.5, Project Characteristics.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses in proximity to the project site are primarily comprised of commercial and residential uses. The surrounding land uses include the following:

North: Multi-family residences are located to the north. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned R-3-S; East: An alley is located to the east. Further east across the alley are commercial uses (i.e., Montero Trucking, Guadalajara Tires) and an ARCO gas station. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW and Neighborhood Commercial and Residential (CNR);
South: East Pacific Coast Highway is located to the south. Further south are commercial uses (i.e., Monterey Motel and Never No Thrift Store) and single- and multi-family residences. Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW; and
West: Gardenia Avenue is located to the west. Further west are single- and multi-family residences and commercial uses (i.e., Coin-Op Laundry, La Chula Market). Uses are designated NSC-M and zoned CHW and R-3-S.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement).

Refer to Section 2.7, Permits and Approvals, for a description of the permits and approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the project entitlement process moves forward.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3-3 Initial Study Checklist

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Long Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:

No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.

Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 3-4 Initial Study Checklist
Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Where impacts are anticipated to be potentially significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-1 Aesthetics

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.

Explanations are provided for each item.

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. According to the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Mobility Element, scenic routes in Long Beach are primarily located near the shoreline along Interstate 710, Ocean Boulevard, and State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway). There are no designated scenic routes in the project vicinity. As such, project implementation would have no impact on scenic vistas within the City.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways within proximity to the project site.1 The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a segment of State Route 91, located approximately 27 miles to the east.

The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) is a segment of East Pacific Coast Highway, located approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the project site. Given the distance, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) along these scenic highways. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map , https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed November 15, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-2 Aesthetics
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of Long Beach. As such, the following analysis evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable regulations governing scenic quality.

MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Title 21, Zoning, includes site development standards that aid in governing scenic quality. Table 4.1-1, Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project and relevant Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) zoning district development standards related to scenic quality. Refer to Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning, for a discussion concerning the project’s consistency with other applicable zoning requirements.

Table 4.1-1
Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
Section 21.32.210 – Building height:

The height of all buildings shall be limited as indicated in Tables 32-2 and 32-2A.

Per Table 32-2, CHW zone has a maximum building
height of 28 feet (2 stories).

Consistent. The proposed car wash tunnel building
would be approximately 28 feet tall. Additionally, the
restroom/trash enclosure/vacuum room and monitoring
room would be approximately 16 feet, 6 inches and 13
feet, 3 inches in height, respectively. Thus, the project would be consistent with LBMC Section 21.32.210.

Section 21.32.220(d) – Yards, required landscaping:

All required yard areas, except yards abutting alleys and yards used for outdoor dining, shall contain an area not less than five feet (5') in width planted with trees, shrubs and/or groundcover. The four foot (4') setback area from the abutting alley shall also be landscaped unless such area is used for a driving aisle. For additional landscape requirements, see Chapter 21.42, Landscape Standards.

Consistent. The site’s north, east, south, and west yard areas would contain at least five feet of assorted
ornamental landscaping; refer to Exhibit 2-5,
Conceptual Landscape Plan. It is acknowledged that
the abutting alley to the east is used as a driving aisle for adjacent commercial and residential uses.

Nevertheless, limited landscaping would be provided
along the northeastern portion of the project site
abutting the alley. As such, the project would be
consistent with LBMC Section 21.32.220(d).

Section 21.32.225 – Screening required:

A. General. The following required screening shall apply in all commercial districts:

1. Open Storage. Open storage shall be prohibited.

Certain merchandise is permitted to be displayed
outdoors for sale or rent as indicated in Tables 32-0 and 32-1.

2. Parking Lots. All parking lots shall be screened as
provided for in Section 21.41.266 and Chapter 21.42.

3. Adjacent To Residential Districts. All commercial uses adjoining or abutting a residential district shall be
Consistent. The following analysis corresponds to the
LBMC section numbers.

1. The project does not propose any open storage
areas or parking structures.

2. The project would provide 18 self-service vacuum
parking spaces for short-term vacuuming activities in
the center of the site. The parking area would be
screened with ornamental landscaping along East
Pacific Coast Highway and Gardenia Avenue.

3. The site’s northern boundary is adjacent to existing residences zoned Multi-family Residential, Small Lot

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-3 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-1 [cont’d]
Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
screened by a solid fence or wall not less than six feet, six residential lot, where the fence or wall shall be three feet (R-3-S). An approximately 6.5-foot high decorated
masonry wall would be constructed along the northern
site perimeter. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with LBMC Section 21.32.225.

Section 21.32.230 – Design of buildings.

All new and remodeled commercial buildings shall comply with the following design criteria:

A. Architectural Themes. Architectural themes, modules
and materials present on the main facade of the building shall be used on all other facades.

B. Change of Material. Each side of a building must
contain a primary and an accent material, and the accent material(s) must cover not less than ten percent (10%) of the facade.

Consistent. The following analysis corresponds to the
LBMC section letters.

A. The proposed buildings would primarily be
constructed of metal clad exterior wall panels, metal
doors, and clear glass. The architectural materials and elements are proposed on all three buildings on-site
and on the various facades to ensure a consistent
architectural theme.

B. The proposed buildings’ exterior color palette would include copper, white, silver, and red. Each building
would incorporate the various colors to ensure a unified aesthetic of the proposed development.

Section 21.42.040 – Landscaping standards for R-3,
R-4 and Nonresidential Districts:

B. Landscape Area Requirements. A minimum number of
plants shall be provided as follows:

1. On-Site Street Frontage.
a. Within the required setback area along all street
frontages, except at driveways, a minimum five-
foot (5') wide landscaping strip (inside dimension to
planter) shall be provided. This area shall be
landscaped with one (1) tree for each fifteen (15)
linear feet of street frontage and three (3) shrubs
for each tree.

b. Sites with more than one hundred feet (100') of
street frontage shall also provide one (1) tree of not
less than thirty-six inch (36'') box size for each one
hundred feet (100') of street frontage.

c. Planters. All on-site landscaped areas adjoining the public right-of-way shall be located in planters not
less than three inches (3") high. The planters shall
be designed to drain back onto the private property
and not directly onto the public right-of-way. When
required, tree-wells shall be sized to allow full
growth of proposed trees within the public right-of-
way.

Consistent. The following analysis corresponds to the
LBMC section letters.

a. The project’s street frontages along East Pacific
Coast Highway and Gardenia Avenue would be
landscaped with ornamental vegetation. As shown on
Exhibit 2-5, conceptual landscaping along East Pacific
Coast Highway would include 12 springtime Indian
Hawthorn and 12 fortnite lilies. Landscaping along
Gardenia Avenue would include six desert museum
Palo Verde, 16 heavenly bamboo, 17 New Zealand flax
and 30 Mauritius hemp. The conceptual landscape
plan, including total number of trees and shrubs on-site, would be reviewed and approved by the City of Long
Beach Development Services during plan check review
to ensure compliance.

b. Refer to response to Section 21.42.040(1)(a).

c. The proposed street trees would be planted within
tree wells and on-site trees would be planted in a
minimum three-inch mulch layer. The on-site
landscaped areas would permeate runoff into the
proposed catch basins and stormwater collection
system.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-4 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-1 [cont’d]
Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
Section 21.42.040 – Landscaping standards for R-3,
R-4 and Nonresidential Districts:

B. Landscape Area Requirements. A minimum number of
plants shall be provided as follows:

4. Yards and Parking Lots Near Residential District and Schools.
a. Residential (R-3, R-4), Commercial, Mixed-Use,
and Light Industrial (IL) Districts. A minimum five
foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided as a
buffer along all yard areas abutting or adjacent to
an alley, a residential district or school. This area
shall be planted fifteen feet on center with broad
leaf evergreen trees and minimum twenty-four inch
box size.

Consistent. The project’s northern perimeter abutting
existing residential uses would be landscaped with 35
dwarf strawberry trees (5-gallon) and five Brisbane box trees (24-inch box) along with groundcover and shrubs
to screen the proposed development from the adjacent
residential uses. Landscaping along the alley to the
east would include one desert museum Palo Verde (24-
inch box), one new gold lantana (1-gallon), two western redbud (15-gallon), and 14 hopseed bush (15-gallon).

Additionally, as stated, the conceptual landscape plan, including total number of trees and shrubs on-site and
planting details, would be reviewed and approved by
the City of Long Beach Development Services during
plan check review to ensure compliance.

Section 21.42.040 – Landscaping standards for R-3,
R-4 and Nonresidential Districts:

C. Plant Size. All the required plant materials shall be not less than the following sizes:

1. Trees. For required on-site trees, at least twenty-four inch box and seven foot in height;

2. Shrubs. For required shrubs, at least five gallons; and

3. Mulch. A minimum of three-inch mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil services of landscaped areas.

Consistent. The following analysis corresponds to the
LBMC section letters.

1. The proposed on-site trees would include seven
desert museum Palo Verde (24-inch box) at least nine
feet in height and five Brisbane box trees (24-inch box) at least ten feet in height.

2. All required shrubs on-site would be five gallons in size at the time of planting.

3. All groundcover within landscaped areas would
include a mulch layer at least three inches in depth.

Section 21.43.020 – Height limits:

Fence and garden wall heights shall not exceed the
maximum heights set forth in Table 43-1. Fence heights
shall be measured from grade adjoining the fence on the public right-of-way side of the fence (for fences adjoining the public right-of-way) and the average grade of both
sides of the fence (for fences between two (2) private
properties). For fences in flood hazard zones where the Building Code requires the finish floor of a building to be constructed at or above the top of the flood plain, fence height shall be measured from the top of the flood plain.

Commercial and Industrial
- Within required street frontage
setback
3 feet
- Abutting residential front yard 3 feet
- Abutting residential side or rear yard 8 feet
- Other yard 12 feet
Consistent. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Site
Plan, the project would provide an approximately 6.5-
foot tall, decorated masonry wall along the northern site perimeter that abuts the existing residences to the
north. Additionally, the project would construct a five- foot high metal fence on the eastern perimeter adjacent to the alley. As such, the project would be consistent
with LBMC Section 21.43.020.

Source: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. ORD-21-0038, enacted November 16, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-5 Aesthetics

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Urban Design Element describes the goals of urban design in Long Beach and includes several strategies and policies governing scenic quality that are relevant to the proposed project. Table 4.1-2, General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with such policies.

Table 4.1-2
General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
Strategy No. 1: Improve function and connectivity within neighborhoods and districts.

Policy UD 1-2: Focus development and supporting
infrastructure improvements within targeted Areas of
Change identified within the Land Use Element.

Consistent. The project site is located within an Area of Change identified in the General Plan Land Use
Element. According to the General Plan, Areas of
Change are intended to strengthen economic
development and allow for focused development
opportunities, while supporting new mobility and
sustainability goals. The proposed project would
redevelop the underutilized restaurant site into a new
automated car wash facility with associated site
improvements, including landscaping, a stormwater
collection system, and a reclaimed water system; refer
to Section 2.0, Project Description. Landscaping is
proposed along the site perimeter and would improve
the aesthetics of the existing site conditions. The new car wash facility would serve residents in the area and would create new short-term construction and long-
term operational jobs. Additionally, the proposed
project would include a reclaimed water system
designed to treat approximately 30 to 120 gallons per
minute of reclaimed water and typically allows for the
treatment and reuse of approximately 60 to 85 percent
of water on-site. The project would also install high
efficiency lighting, solar-ready roofs, and use energy
efficient equipment, which would reduce energy
consumption and support the City’s sustainability goals.

As such, the proposed development would be
consistent with this policy.

Strategy No. 2: Beautify and improve efficiency of corridors, gateways, and private and public spaces.

Policy UD 2-3: Promote enhancement of the built
environment through façade improvements, quality and
context-sensitive infill development, and landscaping.

Consistent. The proposed project would redevelop a
site currently occupied by a one-story restaurant and
surface parking lot with minimal landscaping into an
automated car wash facility. The proposed buildings
would be constructed primarily of metal clad exterior
wall panels, metal doors, and clear glass. Architectural features would include an aluminum canopy over the
wash tunnel, aluminum louvers, wall sconces,
corrugated metal sheets, and illuminated individual
channel wall signs.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-6 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-2 [cont’d]
General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
Additionally, the buildings’ exterior color palette would include copper, white, silver, and red. Landscaping
improvements would include a variety of ornamental
trees, shrubs, and ground cover; refer to Exhibit 2-5.

The proposed car wash facility would complement the
adjacent auto repair commercial uses to the east of the site and other existing commercial uses along East
Pacific Coast Highway.

Strategy No. 14: Building types and forms should contribute to the PlaceType they are sited within and should address potential conflicts between neighboring PlaceTypes by implementing buffering measures and thoughtful design patterns.

Policy UD 14-1: Properly scale a building’s form (i.e., height and massing) to the primary street it fronts on (i.e., taller buildings on larger boulevards, smaller buildings on narrower streets).

Consistent. The project involves constructing an
automated express car wash facility on-site, including
standard car wash tunnel equipment, and an area for
mechanical/electrical equipment and storage.

Additionally, the project would construct an
approximately 355-square foot one-story building
consisting of a restroom/trash enclosure/vacuum room
in the southeast corner of the site, as well as a 127-
square foot one-story monitoring room near the
entrance (northern end) of the car wash tunnel. The
proposed structures would range in height from
approximately 13 to 28 feet (one- to two-stories); refer to Exhibit 2-4, Building Elevations. Thus, the proposed building would be similar in scale to other existing uses along East Pacific Coast Highway, including single-
family residences to the north and west and one- and
two-story commercial buildings to the south and east.

Policy UD 14-6: Ensure new development respects the
privacy concerns of adjoining properties and buildings.

Building, window, and balcony orientation should
maximize views while preserving the privacy of
surrounding neighbors by considering direct sight lines to windows and/or outdoor living spaces on neighboring lots.

Minimize obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary
Consistent. Existing multi-family residences are located north of the project site. The proposed structures on-
site would not have any windows directed towards the
off-site residences in a manner that would impact their privacy. Specifically, the car wash tunnel building would have large clear windows along the western and
eastern elevations to allow patrons and employees to
monitor cars as they drive through the tunnel and to
provide natural lighting within the tunnel. The
monitoring building at the northern entrance of the
tunnel would have a window to allow employees to
monitor the car wash operation, and the restroom/trash
enclosure/vacuum room building would not have any
windows. Additionally, a 6.5-foot high decorative
masonry wall is proposed along the northern boundary
adjacent to the existing residences. Thus, the proposed development would not infringe on the privacy of
adjacent residences. It should also be noted that the

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-7 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-2 [cont’d]
General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
proposed building heights would be similar in height to adjacent off-site structures and thus, would not create any direct sight lines to off-site windows and/or outdoor living spaces on neighboring lots. Further, all proposed on-site lighting fixtures would be dark-sky compliant,
directional, and shielded to minimize light spillover on adjacent uses.

Policy UD 14-8: Avoid street walls where it will adversely affect the existing character (i.e., scale, dominant style, historic features) of a neighborhood or street face.

Consistent. No street walls are proposed as part of the project. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect the existing character of the neighborhood or
street face along East Pacific Coast Highway.

Strategy No. 15: Consider vacant parcels as infill opportunities.

Policy UD 15-2: Promote infill projects that supportthe designated PlaceType and be appropriate in their use,
scale, compactness of development, and design
character with adjacent sites and nearby existing
development.

Consistent. The project site is designated with a
PlaceType of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor
Moderate Density (NSC-M). The NSC-M PlaceType
encourages compact development and discourages
large buildings adjacent to single-family homes. The
proposed project would construct an automated car
wash facility with a car wash tunnel building and two
associated structures. The proposed building heights
would be similar in height to adjacent off-site structures (one- to two-stories) and thus, would be similar in scale as nearby existing development. Additionally, the
project would be developed with a unified architectural theme, consistent building materials and color palette, and landscaping along the site perimeters. Overall, the proposed land use type supports the NSC-M PlaceType
and would be appropriate in its use, scale, and design
character with adjacent auto repair commercial uses to
the east.

Strategy No. 21: Protect and enhance established Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors –Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.

Policy UD 21-4: Ensure signage, lighting, and other
potential nuisances are selected with a sensitivity to
existing residential neighbors.

Consistent. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, six 20-foot light- emitting diode (LED) light poles would be installed on- site, one at the southeast corner of the site and five
along the drive-through lane. An LED parking lot light
would also be provided adjacent to the car wash tunnel.

All proposed lighting fixtures would be dark-sky
compliant, directional, and shielded to minimize light
spillover on adjacent uses. Additionally, the proposed
project would comply with LBMC Section 21.41.259,
Parking areas – Lighting, which requires parking lot
lighting be directed and shielded to prevent light and
glare from intruding onto adjacent sites.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-8 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-2 [cont’d]
General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis

Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
As analyzed, the project would be consistent with LBMC standards and General Plan policies governing scenic quality.

Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Strategy No. 35: Building design and form shall define street walls that contribute to great streets and vibrant pedestrian environments.

Policy UD 35-2: Buildings should be constructed of high quality and durable materials, especially at the ground floor, which is experienced most by pedestrians.

Consistent. The proposed development would
construct an automated car wash facility with high
quality building material. Building materials would
primarily consist of metal clad exterior wall panels,
metal doors, and clear glass. Architectural features
would include an aluminum canopy over the wash
tunnel, aluminum louvers, wall sconces, and illuminated individual channel wall signs. Additionally, the building’s exterior color palette would include copper, white,
silver, and red.

Strategy No. 15: Consider vacant parcels as infill opportunities.

Policy UD 35-7: Monolithic structures that appearas a
massive wall, block views, or overshadow the surrounding neighborhood, should be avoided.

Consistent. As stated, proposed architectural features
on the buildings would include wall sconces, aluminum
louvers, corrugated metal sheets, and illuminated
individual channel wall signs. Proposed buildings would range between approximately 13 to 28 feet in height.

Further, the proposed structures would not exceed the
height limit established for NSC-M PlaceTypes and
would be similar in height to adjacent off-site buildings.

As such, the proposed structures would not block views
or overshadow the surrounding neighborhood.

Strategy No. 39: Beautify the City with trees and landscaping while being conscious of water resources and utilizing sustainable practices.

Policy UD 39-1: Accommodate large canopy street trees
that contribute to the City’s urban forest, enhance street character and neighborhood identity, and provide shade
for pedestrians and parked cars and bikes.

Consistent. Six street trees and two palm trees are
located along the site’s western street frontage. The
proposed project would protect in place six street trees and one palm tree along Gardenia Avenue. It is
acknowledged that one existing palm tree would be
removed as part of the project. Nevertheless, six desert museum Palo Verde trees would be planted along the
western street frontage.

Strategy No. 40: Design parking lots, structures, driveways, and access points to promote walkability, reduced trips, and promote sustainability.

Policy UD 40-6: Enhance driveway access points with
ornamental landscaping, accent paving, and lighting.

Consistent. Refer to response to Policy UD 21-4
regarding proposed lighting. Additionally, the project’s street frontages along East Pacific Coast Highway and
Gardenia Avenue where driveway access points are
proposed would be landscaped with various trees,
shrubs, and groundcover; refer to Exhibit 2-5.

Source: City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach General Plan Urban Design Element, December 2019.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-9 Aesthetics
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light sensitive uses, light introduction can be a nuisance, affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky.

The proposed project is located within an urban and developed area of Long Beach. Existing light sources in the project vicinity include interior and exterior lighting associated with the on-site restaurant and parking lot, and adjacent commercial, office, and residential uses. Light and glare caused by vehicular headlights and street lights along East Pacific Coast Highway and Gardenia Avenue further influence lighting in the project area.

CONSTRUCTION
Based on LBMC Section 8.80.202, Construction Activity – Noise Regulation, construction activities are allowed to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Federal holidays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction activities are prohibited on Sundays. Project construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s construction ordinance. While some construction activities could result in moments of light or glare impacts (e.g., sun reflecting on equipment), sources of light and glare are present in the urbanized project area during day and nighttime hours, particularly from existing uses and vehicular traffic along East Pacific Coast Highway. Thus, construction-related light and glare sources would not substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

OPERATIONS
Project operations would result in new sources of light and glare. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, six 20-foot LED light poles would be installed on-site, one at the southeast corner of the site and five along the drive-through lane. An LED parking lot light would be provided adjacent to the car wash tunnel. All proposed lighting fixtures would be dark-sky compliant, directional, and shielded to minimize light spillover on adjacent uses. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with LBMC Section 21.41.259, Parking areas – Lighting, which requires parking lot lighting be directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from intruding onto adjacent sites. It is acknowledged that vehicles entering and exiting the car wash facility would increase lighting in the project area compared to existing conditions. However, the proposed project would screen on-site vehicular lighting, particularly to the northern off-site residences, with a 6.5-foot high decorative masonry wall and ornamental landscaping to avoid light spillover onto adjacent uses. Further, it should be noted that the project site fronts East Pacific Coast Highway, which is a heavily trafficked roadway with substantial vehicular lighting under existing conditions. As such, the project would not result in a substantial increase in light generated by vehicular traffic traveling in and out of the project site.

Overall, light and glare impacts associated with construction and operations of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.1-10 Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 The project site is currently developed with a restaurant with an associated paved surface parking lot. The project site does not contain any farmland and no farmland exists within the site vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is currently zoned Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S). No zoning for agricultural use currently applies to the project site or surrounding areas. 1 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed November 9, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Additionally, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.2 Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(a) and 4.2(b). No zoning for forest land or timberland exists within the project site, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.2(b) and 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As stated above in Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c), the project site is located within an urbanized area and is void of any agriculture or forestry resources. Thus, there is no potential for the conversion of such resources and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, November 21, 2018.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-1 Air Quality

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the SCAQMD 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions set forth in the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP utilized information and data from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) and its 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS). While SCAG has recently adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP that utilizes information from the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. SCAQMD is planning to release the updated AQMP in 2022. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the 2016 AQMP and the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, in order to determine consistency with the 2016 AQMP, two main criteria must be addressed:

CRITERION 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment. a) Would project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant during project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-2 Air Quality
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed in Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to new air quality violations.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized concentrations during project construction and operation; refer to Reponses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP emissions reductions.

CRITERION 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning with the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
Growth projections included in the 2016 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on general plan land use designation and SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments, such as the City of Long Beach. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment) into the 2016 AQMP.

Based on the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a PlaceType designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-M). The NSC- M PlaceType encourages compact development and discourages large buildings adjacent to single-family homes. Uses may include schools, parks, daycare, senior care, police and fire stations, libraries and similar facilities. The NSC-M PlaceType has a 1.0 to 1.5 floor area ratio (FAR), maximum residential density of 54 units per acre (e.g., moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings), and a general maximum building height limit of seven stories. It is acknowledged that height limits can vary within PlaceType areas.

Based on General Plan Map LU-8, Heights, the project site has a five-story maximum building height limit.

The proposed project would construct 3,760 square feet of building area on a 24,083-square foot lot, resulting in a 0.156 FAR. The proposed project would be a one-story building with a maximum height of 28 feet and

0.156 FAR. As such, the project would be consistent with General Plan designation.

According to the City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map, the project site is zoned Regional Highway District (CHW) and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S). Based on Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 21.32.020(D)(1), the CHW district allows mixed scale commercial uses located along major arterial streets and regional traffic corridors. Additionally, based on LBMC Section 21.31.020(K), the R-3-S district is a three-family residential district specifically for multi-family development on smaller lots. The proposed car wash use is a conditionally permitted use in the CHW zone and thus, would require a Conditional Use Permit. With the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the project would be consistent with the site’s zoning designation. In addition, it is acknowledged that the site is currently comprised of two lots.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-3 Air Quality
The northern lot is currently zoned R-3-S while the southern lot is zoned CHW. The project also requests a Lot Merger (to consolidate the two lots into one) and a Zone Change (to rezone the northern lot from R-3-S to CHW).

As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth exceeding existing local conditions and/or regional population projections. The proposed car wash facility would operate with approximately 10 employees (five employee per shift, two daily shifts). The City’s population estimate as of January 1, 2021 is 467,730 persons.1 While the project does not involve residential development, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 10 employees and could indirectly induce population growth if future employees move into the City to work at the proposed carwash facility. While it is likely that future employees already live in the City or would commute in from neighboring jurisdictions, this analysis conservatively assumes all 10 future employees would move into the City for employment. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.77, the project would result in an indirect population increase of approximately 27 persons.2
SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s population to reach 484,500 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 18,200 between 2012 and 2040.3 The project’s anticipated population increase (27 persons) would represent approximately 0.15 percent of the City’s anticipated population growth by 2040, and less than 0.01 percent of the City’s projected population by 2040.

Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s employment to reach 181,700 jobs by 2040, representing a total increase of 28,500 jobs between 2012 and 2040. The approximately 10 project-generated jobs represent 0.04 percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and less than 0.01 percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment.

Therefore, the project would not cause SCAG’s population and employment growth forecasts to be exceeded.

Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections included in the 2016 AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts and would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403 that requires excessive fugitive dust emissions controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures and Rule 1113 that regulates the reactive organic gases (ROG) content of paint. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion. c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP are primarily based on the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

As discussed above, it is acknowledged that the site is currently comprised of two lots. The northern lot is currently zoned R-3-S while the southern lot is zoned CHW. The project requests a Lot Merger (to consolidate the two lots into one) and a Zone Change (to rezone the northern lot from R-3-S to CHW). As such, upon approval, the project would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would implement various SCAG land use planning policies and is considered a redevelopment project. Further, the project would be consistent with the goals of Senate Bill 375. Specifically, the project site is located within 500 feet of an existing Metro bus 1 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 1, 2021. 2 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 1, 2021. 3 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2016.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-4 Air Quality
stop (Line 21, 22, 23, 171, 172, 173, 174 and 175), which would incentivize employees to utilize alternative transportation modes and therefore lower criteria pollutant emissions. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.

In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact.

The project has the potential to generate short-term emissions during construction and long-term emissions during operations. Construction activities may generate temporary pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, as well as construction worker, vendor, and haul trips. Project operations may generate area, energy, mobile, or stationary source emissions. The following analysis discusses the project-generated construction, operational, and cumulative emissions.

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.

Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere.

The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-5 Air Quality
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. Upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that designates the basin as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current state standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below).

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight.

ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities would include demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The project would be constructed in approximately eight months. The proposed earthwork would involve approximately 417 cubic yards of cut and no fill, resulting in approximately 417 cubic yards of soil export. Emissions for each construction phase have been quantified based upon the phase durations and equipment types. Exhaust emission factors for typical

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-6 Air Quality
diesel-powered heavy equipment area based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 4.3-1, Project-Generated Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.

Table 4.3-1
Project-Generated Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 Construction Emissions2 3.18 21.49 22.76 0.05 1.44 1.00 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Winter emissions represent worst-case.

2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules.

The adjustments applied in CalEEMod includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emission that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.

Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particulate health concerns is the amount of PM10generated as part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5components from material in the Earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.

The project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10and PM2.5 concentrations. As depicted in Table 4.3-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated with fugitive dust would be less than significant.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-7 Air Quality
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, construction worker commutes to the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. Standard SCAQMD regulations, such as maintaining all construction equipment in proper tune and shutting down equipment when not in use for extended periods of time would be implemented. As presented in Table 4.3-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the SCAQMD, the ROG emissions associated with paving and architectural coating have been quantified with the CalEEMod model. As required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings for the proposed structures would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.

ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 4.3-1.

Total Daily Construction Emissions
In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was utilized to model construction emissions for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As indicated in Table 4.3-1, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, Federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.

Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area.4 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. The analysis of daily operational emissions has been prepared by utilizing the CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Emissions associated with each source area detailed in Table 4.3-2, Project- Generated Operational Emissions, are discussed below. As a conservative analysis, the existing condition emissions 4 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-8 Air Quality
were not modeled or deducted from the project-generated emissions, except for the trip generation, which was modeled as net increase of daily trips.

Table 4.3-2
Project-Generated Operational Emissions

Emissions Source4 Pollutant (pounds/day)1,3
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 1.01 0.84 7.36 0.01 1.29 0.35
Total Summer Emissions2 1.10 0.84 7.36 0.01 1.29 0.35
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Area 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.98 0.91 7.45 0.01 1.29 0.35
Total Winter Emissions2 1.07 0.91 7.46 0.01 1.29 0.35
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

3. The reduction/credits for operational emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions are generated from consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. SCAQMD Rule 1113 restricts the VOC content of architectural coatings, reducing ROG emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-2, area source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. As such, impacts due to operational area source emissions would be less than significant in this regard.

Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of natural gas associated with the proposed project. However, according to the project Applicant, there would be no natural gas usage on-site. Additionally, criteria pollutants emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is off-site. Therefore, energy source emissions would be zero and not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table 4.3-2. As such, there would be no impact in this regard.

Mobile Source
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example,

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-9 Air Quality
ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5are all pollutants of regional concern (NOXand ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod model run for the operation year 2024. This model predicts ROG, CO, SOX, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses; refer to Appendix A.

According to the Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project (Trip Generation Analysis) prepared by LSA Associates and dated December 20, 2021, the proposed project would generate approximately 453 net daily trips, including 39 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 48 trips during the p.m. peak hour; refer to Appendix D, Trip Generation Analysis. As shown in Table 4.3-2, mobile source emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact would occur due to the proposed project’s operational mobile emissions.

Total Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 4.3-2, the total operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY HEALTH IMPACTS
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (dated April 6, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (dated April 13, 2015) for the Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, SJVAPCD acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.

The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored sites by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOXor VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health effects.

Cumulative Short-Term Construction Impacts
With respect to the proposed project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2016 AQMP pursuant to

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-10 Air Quality
Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and implement all feasible SCAQMD rules to reduce construction air emissions to the extent feasible. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures. Implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 and the 2016 AQMP emissions control measures would help the project reduce its emissions from construction activities.

Pursuant to SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin.

As discussed above, the project’s short-term construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds and would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the project’s construction emissions would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable air quality impact for nonattainment criteria pollutants in the Basin. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Cumulative Long-Term Operational Impacts
As discussed, the proposed project would not result in long-term operational air quality impacts. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by- project basis. Furthermore, project adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would help reduce operational air emissions. Emission reduction technology, strategies, and plans are constantly being developed. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant.

Therefore, no cumulative operational impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project would result.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as those most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The nearest sensitive receptors are multi-family residences located adjacent to the northern project boundary. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction and operational impacts (stationary source only). The CO hotspot analysis following the LST analysis addresses localized mobile source impacts.

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I- 4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4, South Los Angeles County Coastal.

Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. The project is anticipated to disturb 0.55-acre during the 10-day grading phase. Therefore,

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-11 Air Quality
the LST thresholds for one acre was utilized for the construction LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi-family residences adjoining the project site to the north. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. According to SCAQMD LST Methodology, projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, the LST values for 25 meters were utilized in the analysis.

Table 4.3-3, Localized Emissions Significance, shows the localized construction-related emissions for NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10compared to LSTs for SRA 4. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 4.3-3 are less than those in Table 4.3-1 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 4. Therefore, the localized significance impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.

Table 4.3-3
Localized Emissions Significance
Source2 Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions1 11.28 12.87 0.71 0.51
Localized Significance Threshold3 57 585 4 3
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during demolition phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.

3. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (one acre) and distance to sensitive receptor (25 meters) for SRA 4, South Los Angeles County Coastal.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Operations LST
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long- term LST analysis is needed. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.5 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed December 6, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.3-12 Air Quality
Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. The closet monitoring station to the project site that monitors CO concentration is the Long Beach Monitoring Station at 1710 East 20thStreet located approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the project site. The maximum CO concentration at the Long Beach Monitoring Station was measured at 2.259 ppm in 2020.6 Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site.

Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coating. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
6 California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data, https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed December 6, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.4-1 Biological Resources

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is located in a built out, urbanized area of the City and is currently developed with a restaurant and associated surface parking lot. There is minimal landscaping on-site. Ornamental street trees are planted along the site’s western perimeter along Gardenia Avenue; however, there is no landscaping along the site’s northern, eastern, or southern perimeters. Due to the disturbed nature of the project site, including the lack of native vegetation and surrounding developments adjacent to the project site, project development would not adversely impact candidate, sensitive, or special status biological resources. Further, no listed or sensitive habitat that could support such species are present on-site. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.4-2 Biological Resources
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors.

As stated, the project site is entirely developed with an existing restaurant and associated paved surface parking lot with minimal landscaping on-site. Additionally, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present in the project area; refer to General Plan Figure 5, Habitats. Thus, project development would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No State or federally protected wetlands are located within the proposed development footprint. As such, project construction would not adversely impact protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the lack of suitable habitat within the project site, project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species. The project site is bound by existing development on all sides and is located in an urbanized area of Long Beach and thus, does not function as a wildlife corridor or nursery site. However, the existing ornamental street trees and shrubs along Gardenia Avenue have the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. As such, project- related construction could potentially impact nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds on-site and within adjacent street trees if construction activities occur during the nesting season. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure project-related ground disturbing activities occurring during the nesting season, if any, do not adversely impact potential nesting birds on-site or within adjacent street trees along Gardenia Avenue. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 If ground-disturbing activities or removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat are scheduled within the avian nesting season (generally from January 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds within three days prior to any ground disturbing activities.

The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site or in the adjacent street trees along Gardenia Avenue during the

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.4-3 Biological Resources
clearance survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. The biologist shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other appropriate agency(ies). This requirement shall be indicated on project plans and specifications for verification by the City of Long Beach Development Services Department prior to vegetation removal.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 14.28, Trees and Shrubs, contains regulations on tree and shrub planting, removal, and maintenance, including the protection of all trees located along streets, alleys, courts, or other public places during construction activities. Specifically, LBMC Section 14.28.060, Planting or Removing – Permit Required, requires a City permit prior to planting, cutting, trimming, pruning, or removing any tree planted along City streets or on other City property. Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely impact existing street trees along Gardenia Avenue with the exception of one existing palm tree. As such, the project would be required to obtain a permit from the City prior to removing the existing palm tree. Upon permit approval, construction of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies protecting biological resources, including LBMC Chapter 14.28. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map, the project site is neither located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan nor a Habitat Conservation Plan.1 As such, project development would have no impact in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, California Natural Community Conservation Plans, April 2019.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.4-4 Biological Resources
This page left intentionally blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.5-1 Cultural Resources

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The information presented in this analysis is primarily based on the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Memorandum for the Star Express Car Wash Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural/Paleo Report) prepared by Michael Baker International, dated January 31, 2022; refer to Appendix B, Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. As part of the Cultural/Paleo Report, a South Central Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature review and historical map review, historical society consultation, field survey, historical resource evaluation, and archaeological site sensitivity analysis were conducted to determine whether the project could result in a significant adverse change to cultural resources in accordance with CEQA. The field (pedestrian survey) was conducted on November 16, 2021. Notes and photographs were taken during the survey, noting observations of all four exposed building elevations, architectural design, materials, and alterations. The records search of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) was conducted at the SCCIC to identify previous cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The CHRIS search results were provided on January 18, 2022, and included a review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for Los Angeles County. The Cultural/Paleo Report also included a review of available historic United States Geologic Survey 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle maps and consultation request with the Historical Society of Long Beach.

RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
Based on the records search results, seven cultural resources (P-19-150359; P-19-187136; P-19-187176; P-19- 187207; P-19-187212; P-19-187234; and P-19-187299) were identified within 0.25-mile radius of the project site, none of which are within the project site. Additionally, the records search results identified four previous cultural resources studies (LA-06038; LA-08166; LA-08484; and LA-09572) within 0.25-mile radius of the project site, none of which encompass the project site. Additionally, the field survey did not identify any new cultural resources on-site. Based on the distances of known cultural resources from the project site and lack of identified cultural resources on-site, project development would not result in adverse effects to known cultural resources.

ON-SITE BUILDING HISTORICAL EVALUATION
The existing building on-site (Los Potros) was also evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code. To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a property must be at least 50 years of age and possess significance at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria:

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.5-2 Cultural Resources
Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; Criterion 4. It has yielded, or may yield, information important in history or prehistory.

The following includes an evaluation of the restaurant building on-site for its eligibility with the CRHR based on Criterion 1 through Criterion 4 listed above.

Criterion 1 – The restaurant, constructed in 1967, presents unremarkable characteristics and is not significantly associated with a period in history nor is it associated with a significant contribution to local, regional, State, or national culture and history. Therefore, the property is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1.

Criterion 2 – There is no demonstrable evidence that the original owner nor any subsequent owners or occupants made significant contributions to the growth and commercial development of Long Beach. As such, the building is not associated with the lives of person who significantly contributed to the local, regional, State, or national history. The property is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 2.

Criterion 3 – The stand-alone building presents some elements which portray an example of the late 1960’s Contemporary Ranch architectural style. Although the building displays some common elements of its style, these features alone do not confer significance to the property as the building is not a characteristic, important or unique example of its type, period, method of construction, nor is the building associated with a known master architect/builder. As such, the property is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3.

Criterion 4 – The building is not likely to yield valuable information nor possess significant data which would contribute to the understanding of human history. As such, the property is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 4.

Lacking both historic significance and integrity, this property is recommended not eligible for listing in the CRHR. As such, the building is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located within a highly developed commercial area. Previous ground disturbances include the construction of the existing restaurant building and paved parking lot. The project area is completely hardscaped with no exposed or native soils. According to the SCCIC records search, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the project area. Additionally, the soils of the project area have been heavily impacted by modern development on the surface and in the near-surface sediments. Though the soil sits upon Holocene-age sediment, the soils are mapped as Urban Land of varying

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.5-3 Cultural Resources
complexes. Urban Land is heavily modified through the creation of fills, soil import, and construction, and is typically of low sensitivity for significant prehistoric resources.

Nonetheless, there is a potential for disturbing previously unknown archaeological resources during excavation into native soil materials. As such, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all project construction efforts to halt until an archaeologist evaluates the find and makes recommendations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, all work within 50 feet shall halt until a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology, can evaluate the findings and make recommendations. Prehistoric materials can include flaked- stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, or quartzite toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash, and charcoal, shellfish remains, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Historical materials might include wood, stone, or concrete footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, metal, glass, ceramics, and other refuse. The qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find in accordance with Federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other measures as appropriate. This requirement shall be indicated on project plans and specifications for verification by the City of Long Beach Development Services Department prior to ground disturbing activities.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the level of disturbance on the project site and in the site vicinity, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities. Nonetheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to be the most likely descendant. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the aforementioned regulations, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.5-4 Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-1 Energy

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on January 1, 2020. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

Under 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings are 30 percent more energy efficient than those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards.1 The 2019 Title 24 standards require installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

California Green Building Standards (CALGreen)
The California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission developed the green building standards in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHGs from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. The 2019 CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2020. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.2 California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in GHGs. In January 2011, a lighting 1 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, March 2018. 2 U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs-and-savings, accessed December 14, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-2 Energy
chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the State between 2009 and 2020, and beyond 2020. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies and actions to attain significant statewide energy savings, as a result of a year-long collaboration by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes four bold strategies:

1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;

2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;

3. Heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and

4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public health and safety.

The CEC adopted the 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update (2020 IEPR Update) Volume I and Volume III on March 23, 2021, and Volume II on April 15, 2021.3 The 2020 IEPR Update provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California, many of which will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs.4 The year of 2020 was unprecedented as the State continues to face the impacts and repercussions of several events including the COVID-19 pandemic, electricity outages, and Statewide wildfires. In response to these challenging events, the 2020 IEPR Update covers a broad range of topics, including transportation, microgrids, and the California Energy Demand Forecast. Volume I of the 2020 IEPR Update focuses on California’s transportation future and the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), Volume II examines microgrids, lessons learned from a decade of State-supported research, and stakeholder feedback on the potential of microgrids to contribute to a clean and resilient energy system, and Volume III reports on California’s energy demand outlook, updated to reflect the global pandemic and help plan for a growth in zero-emission plug in electric vehicles.5Overall, the 2020 IEPR Update identifies actions the State and others can take that would strengthen energy resiliency, reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change, improve air quality, and contribute to a more equitable future.

Local
City of Long Beach General Plan
Applicable goals and policies related to energy from the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element are listed below.

Goal No.4: Support Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement 3 California Energy Commission, 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated- energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-report-update, accessed November 24, 2021. 4 California Energy Commission, Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, Volume I: Blue Skies, Clean Transportation, March 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-report-update-0, accessed November 24, 2021.
5 Ibid.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-3 Energy
Strategy No.11:Create healthy and sustainable neighborhoods LU Policy 11-2: Provide for a wide variety of creative, affordable, sustainable land use solution to help resolve air, soil and water pollution, energy consumption and resource depletion issues.

THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, project impacts are evaluated to determine whether significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. This analysis will focus on the project’s potential impacts and provide mitigation measure, if required, to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts that are identified. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to energy, if it would:

Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (refer to Response 4.6(a)); and/or Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (refer to Response

4.6(b)).

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis on Response 4.6(a) relies on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:

Criterion 1: The project energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed.

Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.

Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.

Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources.

Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction- related energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy demand. The transportation energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-4 Energy
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.

PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off-road equipment associated with project construction and operations. The analysis of the operational electricity/natural gas usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) modeling results for the project. The project’s estimated electricity/natural gas consumption is based on primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for the County, and consumption factors provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and project site. The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in the County, and the project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.

The project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0001 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption. Based on information provided by the project Applicant, the project would not use natural gas during operation. The project’s construction and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by 0.0036 percent and 0.0009 percent, respectively (Criterion 1).

Table 4.6-1
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption

Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Los AngelesCounty
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide2
Electricity Consumption 44 MWh 65,649,878 MWh 0.0001%
Natural Gas Consumption 0 therms 2,936,687,098 therms 0% Fuel Consumption
Construction Fuel Consumption3 14,191 gallons 390,111,209 gallons 0.0036% Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption3 34,829 gallons 4,033,521,614 gallons 0.0009% Notes:

1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2020.

The project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide diesel fuel consumption in 2022.

Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 14, 2021.

Los Angeles County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County, http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 14, 2021.

3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017 model.

Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-5 Energy

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with latest U.S. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).

Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non-recycled materials.6 The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source material.7 The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 14,191 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by approximately 0.0036 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (Criterion 2). It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient that at comparable construction sits in the region or State (Criterion 5).

Therefore, construction fuel consumption would be not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.

Compliance with Federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 4.6-1 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicle traveling to and from the project site. Based on the Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project at 1911 E.

Pacific Coast Highway (Trip Generation Analysis) prepared by LSA Associates and dated December 20, 2021, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 453 average daily trips. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 34,829 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0009 percent. The project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (Criterion 2).

6 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials , https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed May 13, 2021. 7 Ibid.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-6 Energy
The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project. Notwithstanding, the project would include bicycle parking spaces in compliance with CALGreen Code and would be located within 220 feet of the closest bus stop. These features would encourage and support alternative modes of travel by employees and thus reduce the petroleum fuel consumption (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6).

Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Building Energy Demand
The CEC developed 2020 to 2030 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2019 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections.8CEC forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2019 and 2030 would be up to 1.10 percent for electricity and 0.16 percent for natural gas.9 According to the project Applicant, there would be no natural gas usage on-site. As shown in Table 4.6-1, operational energy consumption of the project would represent approximately 0.0001 percent increase in electricity consumption and no increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts.

As such, the project would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 2). Additionally, the project would consume energy during the normal business hours and the same time periods as other commercial developments. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).

The proposed restroom, trash, and vacuum storage building, and the monitoring room of the project would be required to comply with 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provides minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the 2019 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage (30 percent compared to the 2016 Title 24 standards). The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update, as such complying with the latest 2019 Title 24 standards would make the proposed project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards. In addition, car wash tunnel equipment would be required to meet the latest industry standards, including the applicable energy efficiency standards (Criterion 4).

Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects would not result in the waste of the finite energy resources (Criterion 5).

Therefore, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

8 California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast, February 2020. 9 Ibid.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-7 Energy
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact.

The project would comply with all applicable energy goals and measures identified in the General Plan, as detailed in Table 4.6-2, General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis. The General Plan contains energy efficient goals and measures that would help implement energy efficient measures and subsequently reduce GHG emissions within the City. In addition, the proposed restroom, trash, and vacuum storage building, and the monitoring room of the project would be required to comply with Title 24 and CALGreen standards, which would ensure the project incorporates energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, and ventilation systems. The car wash tunnel equipment would also be required to meet the latest industry standards, including the applicable energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans.

Table 4.6-2
General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

General Plan Goal/Strategy/Policy Project Compliance
No.4: Support Neighborhood Preservation and
Enhancement
Strategy No.11: Create healthy and sustainable
neighborhoods.

LU Policy 11-2: Provide for a wide variety of creative, affordable, sustainable land use solution to help resolve air, soil and water pollution, energy consumption and resource depletion issues.

Consistent. The project would comply with all applicable Title 24 and CALGreen building codes at the time of construction.

The project would install high efficiency lighting, install solar- ready roofs, and use energy efficient equipment, which would reduce energy consumption. The car wash tunnel equipment would be required to meet the latest industry standards, including the applicable energy efficiency standards.

In addition, the project would utilize a reclaimed water system that reuses water in the car wash tunnel that is recovered by the drainage system in the wash bay. The reclaimed water system would allow for the treatment and reuse of approximately 60 to 85 percent of water on-site. As such, the proposed project would be in compliance with General Plan Land Use Element Strategy No. 11 and LU Policy 11-2.

Source: City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, December 2019.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.6-8 Energy
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-1 Geology and Soils

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The information presented in this analysis is primarily based on the Cultural And Paleontological Resources Identification Memorandum for the Star Express Car Wash Project, City Of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural/Paleo Report) prepared by Michael Baker International, dated January 31, 2022; refer to Appendix B, Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report.
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

According to the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Long Beach Quadrangle Map, and General Plan Seismic Safety Element Plate 2, Fault Map with Special Study Zones, , the Newport-Inglewood-

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-2 Geology and Soils
Rose Canyon fault zone is located to the north and east of the project site and is identified as an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone in the General Plan. However, no active faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project site.1Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.

Both primary and secondary hazards pose a threat to the community as a result of the project’s proximity to active regional faults.

The region surrounding the Long Beach area is characterized by a relatively high seismic activity. The greatest damage from earthquakes results from ground shaking. Ground shaking is generally most severe near quake epicenters and generally become weaker further out from the epicenter. As stated above, the closest major fault to the project site is the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. As such, the project may be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake event, as is the case with the vast majority of areas throughout Southern California. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the project applicant to prepare a design-level geotechnical report that evaluates the impacts of existing geotechnical conditions on the proposed development. The geotechnical report shall identify any required seismic design parameters consistent with the LBMC and California Building Code (CBC) to reduce potential geotechnical hazards and maximize structural stability. Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to prepare a site-specific, design-level geotechnical/soils report. The geotechnical report shall identify existing geotechnical conditions (e.g., liquefaction, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, expansive soils) and evaluate such conditions on the proposed development. The report shall identify required seismic design parameters consistent with the Long Beach Municipal Code and most recent California Building Code to reduce potential geotechnical hazards and maximize structural stability. The City of Long Beach Building and Safety Bureau shall ensure that all required seismic design parameters detailed in the geotechnical report are included in the project design plans prior to final plan approval.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction.

Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper groundwater results in low to very low susceptibility.
1 California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Long Beach Quadrangle, March 25, 1999.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-3 Geology and Soils
Based on the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Long Beach Quadrangle, the project site is located in a seismic hazard zone susceptible to liquefaction.2 The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. As stated above, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require the applicant to prepare a geotechnical report which addresses geotechnical conditions on-site and implement required seismic design features in conformance with the LBMC and CBC. The design measures would ensure structural stability in the event of liquefaction hazards. Adherence to existing State and local building standards and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize risks related to liquefaction to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. 4) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are a geologic hazard, with some moving slowly and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking.

The project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat and highly developed. Additionally, based on the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Long Beach Quadrangle, the project site is not susceptible to seismically-induced landslides.3 Consequently, there is a low potential for landslides to occur on or near the project site. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary concern in regard to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be during the construction phase of the project. Grading and earthwork activities associated with the demolition of an existing restaurant and the construction of a new car wash facility would temporarily expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. Demolition and construction activities would be subject to compliance with the CBC and the requirements set forth in LBMC Chapter 8.96, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control. Specifically, LBMC Section

8.96.120, Control of pollutants from other construction activities, requires projects disturbing less than one acre of soil to implement project-specific best management practices (BMPs) prescribed by the City to reduce pollutant discharges to the municipal stormwater system, including BMPs to reduce soil erosion; refer to Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would identify specific erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented in order to reduce stormwater runoff during construction activities. Compliance with the CBC and NPDES requirements would minimize effects from soil erosion. Following compliance with the CBC and NPDES requirements, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact regarding soil erosion.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis provided in Response 4.7(a)(4), the project would not result in significant impacts related to landslides. However, the project site is located within a seismically-active area. The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, including preparation 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-4 Geology and Soils
of a geotechnical/soils report to identify existing geotechnical conditions (e.g., lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse) and evaluate such conditions on the proposed development. The project would be required to implement applicable seismic design features to reduce potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapsible soils hazards. The proposed development is also required to comply with CBC standards to minimize potential geological hazard impacts in this regard. Upon implementation of existing regulations and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when dry) or swelling (when wet). As stated above, the project applicant would be required to prepare a geotechnical report that evaluates existing geotechnical conditions, including the potential for expansive soils, and identify building design features to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards (Mitigation Measure GEO-1). Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC to minimize potential for expansive soil hazards. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be constructed as part of the project.

The proposed development would connect to the existing sewer network. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Cultural/Paleo Report, Young alluvium, undivided (Qya) soil underlies the project site. Qya from the late Pleistocene (126,000 years ago to 11,700 years ago) and Holocene (11,700 years ago to today) Epochs, are predominantly composed of poorly sorted, permeable floodplain deposits consisting of soft clay, silt, and loose to moderately dense sand and silty sand.

The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles (NHMLA) completed a paleontology collection records search for locality and specimen data in the project area on November 15, 2021. The records search showed no previously identified fossil localities within the project area. Six fossil localities from Pleistocene deposits from the same formations were identified mostly at depth, approximately less than three miles from the project site, with the furthest fossil locality approximately 7.6 miles from the project site. The Cultural/Paleo Report also included supplemental searches within a three-mile radius of the project site using the following online sources: University of California Museum of Paleontology Locality Search and The Paleobiology Database. No additional fossil localities were identified.

The NHMLA records search results indicate that potentially fossil-bearing units are present in the project area since the same Pleistocene-age deposits outside of the project area have contained fossils. The Holocene-age deposits in the project area have a low sensitivity, but Pleistocene-age alluvial sediments may underlie these younger sediments at a relatively shallow depth. Therefore, sediments in the project area are considered to have paleontological sensitivity increasing with depth. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would ensure a qualified paleontologist is present on-site to monitor all project-related excavation into native Pleistocene-age materials. In the event that

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-5 Geology and Soils
paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all such activities are required to halt until the qualified paleontologist is able to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the qualified paleontologist and approved by the City would be implemented. As such, impacts regarding paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

GEO-2 Paleontological Monitoring. Given that significant fossils have been recovered from Pleistocene-age rock formations known or anticipated to underlie the project site, a qualified paleontologist shall monitor all project-related excavation activities into native Pleistocene-age soil and bedrock below four feet in depth.

In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all construction activities in the area of the find shall be temporarily halted and the qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find to determine the appropriate treatment in accordance with Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited to an accredited and permanent scientific institution. A qualified paleontologist is defined as a professional with a graduate degree in paleontology, geology, or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of California, as well as at least one year of full-time professional experience, or equivalent specialized training in paleontological research (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits, application of paleontological field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology. This requirement shall be indicated on project plans and specifications for verification by the City of Long Beach Development Services Department prior to ground disturbing activities.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.7-6 Geology and Soils
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gases

4.8 GREENHOUSE GASES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 418 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.1 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.

The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago.

For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. As of November 2021, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 419 ppm.2
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)3 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below 2 degrees Celsius (ºC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to 1 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 , https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf, accessed November 24, 2021. 2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory , https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed November 24, 2021. 3 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gases
endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Clean Air Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.

State
Various Statewide and local initiatives to reduce the State’s contribution to GHG emissions have raised awareness that, even though the various contributors to and consequences of global climate change are not yet fully understood, global climate change is under way, and there is a real potential for severe adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the long term. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation is necessary to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.

Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500-38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley Bill) should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:

By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The Executive Order directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Secretary to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary is required to submit biannual reports to the Governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with Executive Order S-3-05, the Cal/EPA Secretary created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The Climate Action Team released its latest report card in 2021, which tracked the emission reduction strategies progress.

Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, issued in April 2015, requires Statewide GHG emissions to be reduced 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 32
Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gases
achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocations. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities’ strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, is required to provide each affected region with GHG reduction targets emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets are to be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets.

CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding.

Title 24, Part 11
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, is a Statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in five green building topical areas. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2020.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24).

The California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and commonly referred to as “Title 24,” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Part 6 of Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards took effect on January 1, 2020. Under 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings are 30 percent more energy efficient than those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards.4The standards require installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

CARB Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California implement; to reduce CO2e emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions level of 596 million MT CO2e under a business as usual (BAU)5scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, but requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.

The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, commercial and residential, industrial, etc.). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, for 2002 to 4 California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, March 2018. 5 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer to http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2021 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gases
2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce the projected 2020 BAU to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The updated Scoping Plan identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The Scoping Plan update also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.”
In December 2017, CARB approved the California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (2017 Scoping Plan). This update focused on implementation of a 40-percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this, the 2017 Scoping Plan draws on a decade of successful programs that addresses the major sources of climate changing gases in every sector of the economy:

More Clean Cars and Trucks: The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes far-reaching programs to incentivize the sale of zero-emission vehicles, drive the deployment of zero-emission trucks, and shift to a cleaner system of handling freight Statewide.

Increased Renewable Energy: California’s electric utilities are ahead of schedule meeting the requirement that 33 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. The 2017 Scoping Plan guides utility providers to 50 percent renewables, as required under SB 350.

Slashing Super-Pollutants: The 2017 Scoping Plan calls for a significant cut in super-pollutants, such as CH4 and HFC refrigerants, which are responsible for as much as 40 percent of global warming.

Cleaner Industry and Electricity: California’s renewed cap-and-trade program extends the declining cap on emissions from utilities and industries and the carbon allowance auctions. The auctions will continue to fund investments in clean energy and efficiency, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

Cleaner Fuels: The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will drive further development of cleaner, renewable transportation fuels to replace fossil fuels.

Smart Community Planning: Local communities will continue developing plans which will further link transportation and housing policies to create sustainable communities.

Improved Agriculture and Forests: The 2017 Scoping Plan also outlines innovative programs to account for and reduce emissions from agriculture, as well as forests and other natural lands.

Local
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) formally adopted the Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are to:

Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
Promote diverse housing choices;

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gases
Leverage technology innovations;
Support implementation of sustainability policies; and
Promote a green region.

Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the State-mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some of these tools include center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.

City of Long Beach Sustainable City Action Plan
The City adopted the Sustainable City Action Plan (SCAP) in February 2010. The SCAP is tented to guide operational, policy, and financial decisions to create a more sustainable Long Beach. The goals in the SCAP were set to be achieved by 2020. As the proposed project would be operational after 2020, the SCAP is not considered for the consistency analysis in this section.

Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
The City is currently developing its first-ever Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The CAAP will help to reduce GHG emissions, prepare the community for the impacts of climate change, improve the quality of life, and enhance economic vitality in Long Beach. The City released the proposed CAAP on June 1, 2019. The proposed CAAP was introduced to the Long Beach City Council on January 5, 2021, after which the CEQA review process has taken place.

As the CAAP has not yet been adopted, it is not considered for the consistency analysis in this section.

THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions and gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the content of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).6,7A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.8 The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions nor has the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CARB, or any other State or regional agency adopted a 6 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, accessed December 7, 2021. 7 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency , April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed December 7, 2021. 8 4 California Code of Regulations Section 15064(h)(3).

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gases
numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the proposed project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.

Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. However, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts are not based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.

PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Project implementation would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from water demand, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.

The proposed project is an automated car wash facility. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 relies upon trip generation rates from the Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project (Trip Generation Analysis) prepared by LSA Associates (dated December 20, 2021), and project-specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. Based on the Trip Generation Analysis, which takes into account the trips generated by the existing restaurant on-site, the proposed car wash facility would generate approximately 453 net average daily trips, including 39 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 48 trips during the p.m. peak hour. Table 4.8-1, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions associated with the proposed project; refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas /Energy Analysis, for CalEEMod outputs. As a conservative analysis, the existing condition emissions were not modeled or deducted from the project-generated emissions, except for the trip generation, which was modeled as net increase of daily trips.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-7 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.8-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2e2,3
Metric
Tons per
Year1
Metric
Tons per
Year 1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e1
Metric
Tons per
Year 1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e1
Direct Emissions4
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 5.63 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 5.70 Area Source <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01
Mobile Source 219.44 0.02 0.52 0.01 3.70 223.63
Total Direct Emissions 225.08 0.02 0.56 0.01 3.72 229.32 Indirect Emissions4
Energy Consumption 7.83 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 7.87
Solid Waste 1.85 0.11 2.70 0.00 0.00 4.57
Water Demand 7.61 0.09 2.30 <0.01 0.66 10.55
Total Indirect Emissions 17.28 0.20 5.02 <0.01 0.68 22.99 Total Net Project-Related Emissions2 252.31 MTCO2e per year Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

1. Project emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, as recommended by the SCAQMD.

2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed December 14, 2021.

4. Project would incorporate design features that were modeled in CalEEMod, including low-flow water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation system, and solid waste diversion.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for detailed model input/output data.

Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Emissions.Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.9 As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project would result in 5.70 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years (or a total of 170.88 MTCO2e).

Area Source. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The project-related area source emissions include consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping activities. The project would directly result in less than 0.01 MTCO2e per year from area source emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1.

Mobile Source. CalEEMod relies upon trip generation rates from the Trip Generation Analysis and project-specific land use data to calculate mobile source emissions. Project-generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod.

The project would result in approximately 223.66 MTCO2e per year of mobile source generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1.

Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Energy Consumption. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. According to the project applicant, there would be no natural gas usage on-site. The project would indirectly result in 7.87 MTCO2e per year due to energy consumption; refer to Table 4.8-1.

Solid Waste. Solid waste emissions associated with operations of the project were calculated using the CalEEMod model and project-specific land use data. The project would reduce, recycle, or compost 30 percent of the solid waste 9 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008).

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-8 Greenhouse Gases
generated. Therefore, a 30 percent reduction in solid waste was modeled in the CalEEMod. Table 4.8-1 shows the project’s operational solid waste emissions, which would result in 4.57 MTCO2e per year.

Water Demand. The City of Long Beach Water District (LBWD) would be the main water supply provider to the proposed project. The proposed project would install a reclaimed water system to reduce water usage. Based on data from the Western Car Wash Association, each professional car wash with a water reclamation system consumes up to 12 gallons of water.10The proposed car wash facility would generate 775 average daily trips (not taking into account the elimination of trips associated with the existing restaurant building on-site). As a conservative analysis, all of the trips were considered to use the car wash system and each vehicle would consume 12 gallons of water. The project would also comply with the CALGreen Code by installing low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation system, as well as drought-tolerant landscaping. The project is anticipated to consume approximately 2.93 million gallons of water per year, resulting in 10.57 MTCO2e per year.

Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
As shown in Table 4.8-1, the total amount of project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 252.31 MTCO2e per year.

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GHG PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS The GHG plan consistency analysis for the project is based on the project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per- capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.

Project Consistency with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the best-performing projects; and different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is intended to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. Table 4.8-2, Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, shows the project’s consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 10 Western Carwash Association, Water Conservation, https://www.wcwa.org/page/WaterConservation, accessed December 27, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-9 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.8-2
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational and
other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to
reduce commute times and distances and
expand job opportunities near transit and along
center-focused main streets
Plan for growth near transit investments and
support implementation of first/last mile
strategies
Promote the redevelopment of underperforming
retail developments and other outmoded
nonresidential uses
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate new growth,
increase amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options
that reduce the reliance on and number of solo
car trips (this could include mixed uses or
locating and orienting close to existing
destinations)
Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements
and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g.,
shared parking or smart parking)
Center Focused Placemaking, Priority
Growth Areas (PGA), Job Centers,
High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres of Influence
(SOIs), Green Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. Transit Priority Areas (TPAs)
are defined as within the 0.5-mile radius
around an existing or planned major transit
stop or an existing stop along a High Quality
Transit Corridor (HQTC). A HQTC is defined
as a corridor with fixed route bus service
frequency of 15 minutes (or less) during peak
commute hours. A High Quality Transit Area
(HQTA) is an area within one half-mile of a
well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor
with 15-minute or less service frequency
during peak commute hours. The project site
is located in a TPA, a HQTC, and an HQTA.

The closest bus stop is approximately 220
feet away from the project site and serviced
by Long Beach Transit (Lines 21, 22, 23,
171, 172, 173, 174, and 175). Further, the
project site is located within a pedestrian-
oriented area given that it fronts existing
sidewalks to the west and south.

Furthermore, the project site is located in an
urbanized area and within walking and biking
distance of existing commercial
developments. Additionally, the project
would provide bicycle parking spaces in
accordance with CALGreen Code.

Therefore, the project would focus growth
near destinations and mobility options.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing
and prevent displacement
Identify funding opportunities for new workforce
and affordable housing development
Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers
for building context sensitive accessory dwelling
units to increase housing supply
Provide support to local jurisdictions to
streamline and lessen barriers to housing
development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions
PGA, Job Centers, HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable Corridors, Green
Region, Urban Greening.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would
not involve residential development; as such,
this emissions reduction strategy would not
be applicable to the project.

Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides
hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe infrastructure
such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space
Improve access to services through
technology—such as telework and telemedicine
as well as other incentives such as a “mobility
wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit
and other multi-modal payments
HQTA, TPAs, NMA, Livable Corridors.Consistent. Potential development within the project area would be required to comply
with all applicable Title 24 and CALGreen
building codes at the time of construction.

The project would install high efficiency
lighting, install solar-ready roofs, use energy
efficient appliances, and provide bicycle
parking. Therefore, the proposed
development would leverage technology
innovations and help the City, County, and
State meet its GHG reduction goals. The

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-10 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.8-2 [cont’d]
Project Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS

Reduction Strategy Applicable Land Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids”
in communities, for example solar energy,
hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power
generation.
project would be consistent with this
reduction strategy.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Pursue funding opportunities to support local
sustainable development implementation
projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Support statewide legislation that reduces
barriers to new construction and that incentivizes
development near transit corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax
increment or value capture tools to finance
sustainable infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open space
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to
identify opportunities and assess barriers to
implement sustainability strategies
Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region
Continue to support long range planning efforts
by local jurisdictions
Provide educational opportunities to local
decisions makers and staff on new tools, best
practices and policies related to implementing
the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Center Focused Placemaking, Priority
Growth Areas (PGA), Job Centers,
High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs),
Livable Corridors, Spheres of Influence
(SOIs), Green Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. As previously discussed, the
proposed project would be located in close
proximity to several Metro bus stops, which
would promote alternative modes of
transportation. Further, the project would
comply with sustainable practices included in
the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen
Code, such as solar-ready roofs, energy
efficient appliance, low flow features, water-
efficient irrigation, and drought-tolerant
landscaping. Thus, the project would be
consistent with this reduction strategy.

Promote a Green Region
Support development of local climate adaptation
and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project
implementation that improves community
resiliency to climate change and natural hazards
Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands and
carbon sequestration
Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape
Promote more resource efficient development
focused on conservation, recycling and
reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
Reduce consumption of resource areas,
including agricultural land
Identify ways to improve access to public park
space
Green Region, Urban Greening,
Greenbelts and Community
Separators.

Consistent. The proposed project is a
commercial redevelopment in an urbanized
area and therefore, would not interfere with
regional wildlife connectivity or consume
existing agricultural land. The project would
be required to comply with all applicable Title
24 and CALGreen Code measures, which
would help reduce energy consumption and
reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the project
would support efficient development that
reduces energy consumption and GHG
emissions. The project would be consistent
with this reduction strategy.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-11 Greenhouse Gases
Consistency with 2017 CARB Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. Table 4.8-3, 2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable reduction actions and strategies to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions and strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

Table 4.8-3
2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis

Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 350
Achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard
(RPS) by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency
savings by 2030.

Consistent.The project would utilize energy from Southern California Edison (SCE), which is required to meet the renewable energy standards under SB 350. In 2020, more than 40 percent of SCE’s electricity came from renewable resources. By 2030, SCE plans to achieve 80 percent carbon-free energy.1As such, the project would be consistent with the SB 350.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce
the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030,
which is up from 10 percent in 2020.

Not Applicable. The LCFS applies to manufacturers of automotive fuels, not to individual land uses. Mobile emissions associated with the project in Table 4.8-1 reflect compliance with this regulation.

Nonetheless, as previously discussed, GHG emissions related to vehicular travel by the project would benefit from this regulation and mobile source emissions generated by the project would be reduced with implementation of the LCFS consistent with reduction of GHG emissions under AB 32.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Maintain existing GHG standards of light and heavy-
duty vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero- emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the
number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.

Consistent.The propose project would construct an automated car wash facility with self-service vacuum spaces on-site. The project would not involve any truck deliveries. While the proposed project may include occasional light-duty truck vehicle trips during operation, trucks use associated with the project site would be required to comply all CARB regulations, including the LCFS and newer engine standards. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the CARB’s goal of adding 4.2 million zero-emission (ZEVs) on the road, and the project would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile Source Strategy.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve the freight system efficiency and maximize the
use of near zero emission vehicles and equipment
powered by renewable energy. Deploy over 100,000
zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.

Not Applicable. The project would not include any freight systems.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels
by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black
carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year
2030.

Consistent.The project does notinvolve sources that would emit large amounts of methane (refer to Table 4.8-1). Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the SLCP reduction strategy.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.8-12 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.8-3 [cont’d]
2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis

Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission per
capita reduction target for metropolitan planning
organizations (MPO).

Consistent.As shown in Table 4.8-2, the project would be consistent with the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with the goals of SB 375.

Post-2020 Cap and Trade Programs
The Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from major sources (covered
entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG
emissions while employing market mechanisms to cost-
effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals.

Not Applicable. As detailed in Table 4.8-1, the project would not generate GHG emissions over the 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year cap and trade emission threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this goal.

Note:

1. Southern California Edison, 2020 Sustainability Report, 2021.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2017 Scoping Plan, November 2017.

Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analyses provided above demonstrates that the project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Thus, the project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a significant impact on the environment.

Therefore, project-specific impacts with regard to climate change would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials could occur through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during routine use, disposal, and/or transport of hazardous materials/waste. The severity of potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous materials or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The proposed project involves the demolition of an existing restaurant and the construction of an automated car wash facility. Limited amounts of some hazardous materials could be used in the short-term construction of the project and could expose construction workers, including standard construction materials (e.g., paints and solvents), vehicle fuel, and other hazardous materials. The routine transportation, use, and disposal of these materials would be required to adhere to State and local standards and regulations for handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances.

Project compliance with the existing State and local procedures that are intended to minimize potential health risks associated with their use, impacts concerning the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction would be less than significant.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Operations of the proposed automated car wash facility would include the use of various cleaning solvents and chemicals for cleaning vehicles (i.e., hydrofluoric acid) that would be utilized on-site. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the project would utilize a reclaimed water system that would reuse water that has already been used in the car wash. The reclaimed water system would separate used water from any solids, oils, and grease and control anaerobic bacteria growth. The system would require regular maintenance and cleanout.

The proposed project would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State, County of Los Angeles, and the City of Long Beach related to the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. The project is subject to compliance with the existing hazardous materials regulations, which are codified in California Code of Regulations Titles 8, 22, and 26, and their enabling legislations set forth in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 as well as California Code of Regulations Title 49. Both the Federal and State governments require any business, where the maximum quantity of a regulated substance exceeds the specified threshold quantity, register with the City as a manager of regulated substances, and prepare a Risk Management Plan. The Risk Management Plan must contain an off-site consequence analysis, a five- year accident history, an accident prevention program, an emergency response program, and a certification of the truth and accuracy of the submitted information. Businesses would be required to submit their plans to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) (Long Beach Health Department, Long Beach Fire Prevention Bureau, and the Long Beach Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Team), which would make the plans available to emergency response personnel.

While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, best management practices (BMPs) can be implemented to reduce risk to acceptable levels. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Impacts regarding the routine storage, use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substance could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil, soil vapor, or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction Equipment
During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum- based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law.

Site Disturbance Activities
Construction activities could also result in accidental conditions involving existing on-site contamination. The following analysis considers current and past uses of the project site and its vicinity, which may have resulted in existing on-site hazardous conditions, of which could cause accidental conditions during site disturbance activities.

Demolition of Existing Structures
The project site is currently developed with the Los Potros restaurant and associated surface parking lot. Given that the restaurant building was constructed in 1967, there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP), as well as other potential hazardous materials to be present in association with the building materials.1 As such, demolition of this structure would potentially expose construction personnel and the public to ACMs or LBPs. All demolition activities that could result in the release of ACMs or LBPs must be conducted according to Federal and State regulations and standards. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. Therefore, in accordance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, if ACM material is found on-site, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. Additionally, per Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, if paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structure, the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If LBP is found, abatement by a qualified Lead Specialist is required prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. Compliance with Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, as well as compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

Soil and Groundwater Conditions Associated with Adjacent Properties The existing ARCO AM/PM Station (former Shell Station), located approximately 100 feet east of the project, is listed as a former hazardous materials site.2 In October 1989, a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) was reported at the southwestern corner of the ARCO AM/PM Station property. The LUST resulted in an accidental release of pollutants, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA) concentrations in the surrounding area. The underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed and the affected soil and groundwater were analyzed. Elevated levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, TBA, and xylenes were detected in soil samples. TBA-contaminated soils were widespread and were reported to occur at the southeastern corner of the project site. Elevated levels of TBA, and, to a lesser extent, MTBE, were detected in shallow groundwater. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), contaminated groundwater was detected at a depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface (bgs).3 Groundwater sample contour maps of the Arco AM/PM Station and adjacent properties indicate that contaminated groundwater from the reported LUST was present at the southeastern corner of the project site; refer to Figures 11 through 16 of Request for Site Closure report, Former Shell Service Station 1945 East Pacific Coast Highway (at Cherry Avenue) Long Beach, California, dated December 24, 2013.4 The SWRCB determined that the release did not appear to present a soil vapor concern and a soil vapor evaluation was not conducted. Based on the concentrations of benzene, MTBE and TBA that were identified in the groundwater (approximately 15 feet bgs), such concentrations appeared to be naturally attenuated. Therefore, 1 Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, Property Assessment Information System, https://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/m/, accessed January 20, 2022.
2 State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed January 13, 2022. 3 State Water Resources Control Board, Order WQ 2015-0157-UST in the Matter of Underground Storage Tank Case Closure, November 16, 2015.
4 State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed January 13, 2022.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
the release of these pollutants was not remediated at that time. This adjoining property received case closure by the SWRCB on November 17, 2016.

Although this release has received a case closure with the SWRCB, residual concentrations of hazardous materials/waste may still be present in on-site soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater. As such, construction activities for the proposed project could encounter such materials during excavation activities. Proposed excavation would be at depths ranging from three to four feet. In order to minimize potential impacts during excavation, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 requires the contractor to implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) during grading/excavation activities. The SMP would present a decision framework and specific risk management measures for managing soil in a manner protective of human health and consistent with applicable regulatory requirements for construction workers. The SMP would also include provisions for construction workers, should they encounter groundwater on-site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would reduce potential impacts pertaining to accidental conditions potentially involving contaminated soils.

Further, implementation of the proposed project may require closure/abandonment or relocation of existing on-site monitoring wells. The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-4, which would require the project Applicant to submit documentation as proof to the City Engineer that the relocation of any monitoring wells or remedial equipment has been conducted in accordance with the standards and regulations established by the RWQCB.

Thus, upon compliance with existing regulations and recommended mitigation measures, impacts pertaining to a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced to less than significant levels.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Refer to Response 4.9(a), above, for a description of impacts related to proposed operations at the project site. Upon adherence to existing regulations related to chemical safety, impacts pertaining to the potential for accidental conditions during project operations would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1 Prior to demolition activities, an asbestos survey shall be conducted by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) certified building inspector to determine the presence or absence of asbestos containing-materials (ACMs) on- site. If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State- certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403.

HAZ-2 If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the on-site structure, the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional. If lead-based paint (LBP) is found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. LBP removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Contractors performing lead-based paint removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Long Beach Building and Safety Bureau.

HAZ-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional with Phase II/Site Characterization experience and approved by the City

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Engineer. The SMP shall be made available to the contractor and the City Engineer for use during grading activities. The SMP shall include guidelines for safety measures and soil management in the event that soils are to be disturbed, and for handling soil during any planned earthwork activities. The SMP shall also include a decision framework and specific risk management measures for managing soil, including any soil import/export activities, in a manner protective of human health and consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. Lastly, the SMP shall include provisions and safety measures regarding encounters with shallow groundwater.

HAZ-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Applicant shall submit documentation as proof to the City Engineer that the closure/relocation of any monitoring wells, if present, has been conducted in accordance with the standards and regulations established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Jessie Elwin Nelson Academy (Nelson Academy) is located at 1951 Cherry Avenue in the City of Signal Hill, approximately 0.12-mile north of the project site. As discussed under Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(b), upon compliance with existing local, State, and Federal regulations associated with hazardous materials, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4, short- term construction and long-term operations of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As such, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would pose a significant health risk to the Nelson Academy. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the SWRCB to compile and update a regulatory site listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Government Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.

The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.5 Thus, no impacts would result in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is located slightly less than two miles southwest of the Long Beach Airport at 4100 Donald Douglas Drive. While the site is within two miles of an airport, according to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use 5 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed December 21, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.9-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Commission, the project site is located outside of the Long Beach Airport Influence Area.6Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction activities be confined to the boundaries of the project site and would not interfere with any operations of emergency vehicles. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, driveways would be constructed along East Pacific Coast Highway and Gardenia Avenue and would serve as ingress/egress for the project site. As such, construction activities would temporarily impact adjacent roadway rights-of-way (e.g., through partial lane closures). Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require a Traffic Management Plan be prepared and implemented to maintain emergency access. Additionally, all construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s standards and regulations, such as providing the necessary on- and off-site access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation phases. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, and adherence to applicable City standards and regulations, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are built-out with urbanized uses; no wildland vegetation that could fuel wildfires is present. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the City is not located in an area identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a Very High Fire Hazard Zone. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
6 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, Compton/Woodley Airport - Airport Influence Area, https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf, accessed November 15, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite?

3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?

4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Long Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The proposed project may result in water quality impacts during short-term construction activities. Project-related grading activities would expose soils to wind and water erosion. As construction activities would disturb less than one acre, the project would not be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. However, the project would be required to comply with applicable regulations from LBMC Chapter 8.96,Stormwater and Runoff

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
Pollution Control. Specifically, LBMC Section 8.96.120, Control of pollutants from other construction activities, requires projects disturbing less than one acre of soil to implement project-specific best management practices (BMPs) prescribed by the City to reduce pollutant discharges to the municipal stormwater system. Compliance with LBMC Chapter 8.96 would ensure construction-related runoff does not enter downstream water bodies in a manner that adversely affects existing water quality.

Following conformance with LBMC Chapter 8.96 and implementation of construction-related BMPs prescribed by the City, the project’s short-term impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The City owns and/or operates a large municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) that conveys and ultimately discharges into surface waters under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. These discharges originate as surface runoff from the various land uses within the City’s boundary. Untreated, these discharges contain pollutants with the potential to impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses in surface waters. Since 1999, the City’s monitoring data and analyses in support of Total Maximum Daily Load development have identified pollutants of concern in discharges from the MS4. These pollutants of concern vary by receiving water. They generally include, but are not limited to, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pyrethroid pesticides, organophosphate pesticides fecal indicator bacteria, and trash.

On September 8, 2016, the Los Angeles RWQCB made effective Order No. R4-2014-0024, which renews the municipal NPDES permit for the City of Long Beach. As prescribed in Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach, the City shall develop and implement procedures to ensure that a discharger fulfills the following for non-stormwater discharges to MS4s.1
Notifies the City of the planned discharge in advance, consistent with requirements in Table 7 of Order No.

R4-2014-0024-A01 or recommendations pursuant to the applicable BMP manual; Obtains any local permits required by the City;
Provides documentation to the City that it has obtained any other necessary permits of water quality certifications for the discharge;
Conducts monitoring of the discharge, if required by the City; Implements BMPs and/or control measures as specified in Table 7 or in the applicable BMP manual(s) as a condition of the approval to discharge into the MS4; and Maintains records of its discharge to the MS4, consistent with requirements in Table 7 or recommendations pursuant to the applicable BMP manual.

In 2001, the City revised its Long Beach Stormwater Management Program (LBSWMP). The LBSWMP is a comprehensive program containing several elements, practices, and activities aimed at reducing or eliminating pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, the City’s NPDES and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) regulations contained in LBMC Chapter 18.61, NPDES and SUSMP Regulations, state that:
1 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01 Amending Order No. R4-2014-0024, NPDES Permit No.

CAS004003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach, September 8, 2016.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
A. The Building Official shall prepare, maintain, and update, as deemed necessary and appropriate, the NPDES and SUSMP Regulations Manual and shall include technical information and implementation parameters, alternative compliance for technical infeasibility, as well as other rules, requirements and procedures as the City deems necessary, for implementing the provisions of this chapter.

B. The Building Official shall develop, as deemed necessary and appropriate, in cooperation with other City departments and stakeholders, informational bulletins, training manuals and educational materials to assist in the implementation of this chapter.

Pursuant to LBMC Section 8.96.130, Control of Pollutants from New Developments/Redevelopment Projects, the project should be evaluated for its potential to discharge pollutants to the MS4 based on its intended land use and other considerations prior to initiation of construction activities. Once a development or redevelopment project has been evaluated, the City requires appropriate BMPs to be installed during construction for implementation following project completion.

At project completion, the automated car wash facility would decrease impervious areas on-site from 24,123 square feet to 19,874 square feet. Approximately 2,800 square feet of landscaping would be planted on-site along the project frontage on East Pacific Coast Highway and Gardenia Avenue as well as along the car wash drive-through lane. A new drainage and stormwater collection system would also be installed on-site to collect stormwater and car wash water runoff from the facility. An underground stormwater storage tank would be installed under the parking area and multiple catch basins and drainage inlets would be installed on-site to collect runoff from the car wash activities. Further, a reclaimed water system would be installed which would utilize cyclone separators to remove solids, oils, and grease, and one of two methods (air sparger or enzyme/ozone addition) to control odor and biological growth. Air spargers add oxygen to the tank water to control anaerobic bacteria growth while enzyme/ozone addition kills bacteria. Further, the reclaimed water system would reuse the water and treat approximately 30 to 120 gallons per minute, resulting in the reuse of 60 to 85 percent of water on-site.

Overall, the automated car wash facility would be required to comply with the Los Angeles RWQCB’s water quality standards in the SQMP and regulations outlined in LBMC Chapter 8.96, and specifically, Section 8.96.130, Control of Pollutants from New Developments/Redevelopment Projects. Implementation of operational BMPs and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that project operational activities do not violate applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact.The project site is currently developed with a restaurant and an associated paved surface parking lot and is not currently used for groundwater extraction or groundwater recharge purposes. Additionally, development of the project would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions.

Rather, the proposed project would decrease impervious areas on-site from 24,123 square feet to 19,874 square feet.

As previously mentioned, the automated car wash facility would utilize a reclaimed water system which would reuse water previously recovered by the on-site drainage system in the wash bay. Approximately 30 to 120 gallons would be treated per minute, resulting in the reuse of 60 to 85 percent of water on-site.

As detailed in Response 4.19(b), the Long Beach Water District would have adequate supply from its groundwater sources in an average, single-dry, and multiple dry year sequence to meet the water demands from 2020 through 2040.

As such, development of the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures:No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and is predominantly paved with asphalt. Soil disturbance would temporarily occur during project construction due to earth-moving activities such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, and grading. Disturbed soils would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project site. However, as stated above, the project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES MS4 permit, Los Angeles RWQCB’s SQMP, LBSWMP and LBMC; refer to Response 4.10(a).

Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the volume of sediment-laden runoff discharging from the site during project construction, and less than significant impact would occur in this regard Upon project completion, on-site runoff would be collected in proposed catch basins and permeated through on-site landscaping into the proposed drainage and stormwater collection system. Additionally, peak rainfall runoff would decrease from 1.219 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1.187 cfs under a 25-year storm event and from 1.388 cfs to 1.358 cfs under a 50-year storm event. As a result, the proposed project would reduce runoff volume and flow rate on-site compared to existing conditions. Further, the project would not include large areas of exposed soils that would be subject to erosion or siltation as the site would be mostly paved and developed with ornamental landscaping; refer to Exhibit 2-5, Conceptual Landscape Plan. In addition, as discussed in Response 4.10(a), the project would be subject to existing regulatory requirements that address longterm water quality impacts, including erosion or siltation. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.10(c)(1). At project completion, the site would be mostly paved with landscaping along the project’s boundaries and impervious surfaces on-site would be reduced from 24,123 square feet to 19,874 square feet compared to existing conditions. Additionally, an underground stormwater storage tank would be installed under the proposed parking area and multiple catch basins and drainage inlets would be installed on-site to collect runoff from the car wash activities. No substantial changes would occur to the existing topography or drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(c)(1) and 4.10(c)(2).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.10(c)(2) and 4.10(d).

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measures:No mitigation is required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact.

FLOOD
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Map Service Center, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area.2As a result, no impacts would occur in this regard.

TSUNAMI
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. The project site is located over two miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and, according to the California Department of Conservation, is located at a sufficient distance so as not to be subject to potential tsunami hazards.3No impacts would occur in this regard.

SEICHE
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The project site is not in the vicinity of a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank capable of creating a seiche. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the Los Angeles region, which includes the City, and is the basis for the Los Angeles RWQCB’s regulatory programs.

The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a groundwater sustainability plan. The City is located within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles – West Coast groundwater basin, which is designated as a Very Low priority basin.4 Therefore, there is no groundwater sustainability plan established for the basin. However, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California developed the Groundwater Basins Master Plan (GBMP), which identifies projects and programs to enhance basin replenishment, increase reliability of groundwater resources, and improve and protect groundwater quality in the Los Angeles West Coast and Central groundwater basins.5
As stated, project construction and operations would comply with existing NPDES program requirements established by the Los Angeles RWQCB; refer to Response 4.10(a). Additionally, as discussed under Response 4.10(b), project construction and operations would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management. As such, the project 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06037C1966G, Panel 1966 of 2350, April 21, 2021. 3 California Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County Tsunami Hazard Areas , https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/los-angeles, accessed December 20, 2021. 4 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, Final 2018 (Unmodified Basins), https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed November 10, 2021. 5 Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Groundwater Basins Master Plan, September 2016, https://www.wrd.org/sites/pr/files/GBMP_FinalReport_Text%20and%20Appendicies.pdf, accessed November 10, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.10-6 Hydrology and Water Quality
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan or Water Replenishment District of Southern California’s GBMP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures:No mitigation required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Activities and features that could physically divide a community include, but are not limited to:

Construction of major highways or roadways;
Construction of storm channels;
Closing bridges or roadways; and
Construction of utility transmission lines.

The key factor with respect to this threshold is the potential to create physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas of the community. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The site is currently developed with a restaurant and associated surface parking lot and fronts East Pacific Coast Highway. The site is also bound by an alley to the east and Gardenia Avenue to the west; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. While there is an adjacent residential neighborhood to the north of the site, the neighborhood is separated from the site by an existing concrete wall.

Additionally, existing commercial uses to the east are separated from the site by an alley. As such, the proposed automated car wash facility would not physically divide any established communities in the project area. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
According to the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a PlaceType designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-M). The NSC-M PlaceType encourages compact development and discourages large buildings adjacent to single-family homes. Uses may include commercial with a residential component (i.e., mixed-use), schools, parks, daycare, senior care, police and fire stations, libraries and similar facilities. The NSC-M PlaceType has a 1.0 to 1.5 floor area ratio (FAR), maximum residential density of 54 units per acre (e.g., moderate-density apartment and condominium buildings), and a general maximum building height limit of seven stories. It is acknowledged that height limits can vary within PlaceType areas. Based on General Plan Map LU-8, Heights, the project site has a five-story maximum building height limit.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-2 Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would develop a total of 3,760 square feet of building area on a 24,083-square foot site and thus, would have a 0.156 FAR. The proposed structures would have a maximum building height of 28 feet. As such, the project would comply with the NSC-M PlaceType building height limit but would not meet the minimum FAR requirement.

Table 4.11-1, General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis, analyzes the project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element.

Table 4.11-1
General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis
Applicable General Plan
Land Use Element Policies Project Consistency Analysis
STRATEGY No. 1: Support sustainable urban development patterns.

LU Policy 1-6: Require that new building construction
incorporate solar panels, vegetated surface, high albedo surface and/or similar roof structures to reduce net energy usage and reduce the heat island effect.

Consistent. The proposed project would incorporate high albedo colored surfaces on all building exteriors including white and silver. The project would also install high efficiency lighting, install solar-ready roofs, and use energy efficient equipment, which would reduce energy consumption. Thus, the project would reduce net energy usage and reduce the heat island effect.

LU Policy 1-10: In addition to analyzing project and plan impacts on Levels of Service and Stop Delay, analyze
Vehicle Miles Traveled consistent with the State’s
guidelines.

Consistent. The project’s impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is provided in Section 4.17, Transportation. As detailed, the project would generate fewer than 500 net new daily trips and fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips and thus, would result in less than significant impacts related to VMT.

STRATEGY No. 6: Maintain a full range of City services for the community that is consistent with the revenue available to sustain those services.

LU Policy 6-1: Encourage a mix of land uses that is diverse, innovative, competitive, entrepreneurial, local and
sustainable, which thereby promotes economic
development, increases City revenues, expands job growth and increases value, access and usability for existing
neighborhoods and communities.

Consistent. The proposed project would redevelop the site into a new automated car wash facility with associated site
improvements, including landscaping, a stormwater collection system, and a reclaimed water system. Landscaping is
proposed along the site perimeter and would improve the aesthetics of the existing site conditions. The new car wash facility would serve residents in the area and would create new short-term construction and long-term operational jobs.

LU Policy 6-9: Encourage the redevelopment of parcels
with poor land utilization such as single-use commercial structures on parcels over 5,000 square feet.

Consistent. The approximately 24,083-square foot project site is currently developed with an existing single-use commercial structure (Los Potros Restaurant) with the remainder of the site developed as a surface parking lot. While the proposed development would redevelop the site into another single-use commercial development (car wash facility), the site area would be fully utilized with the construction of the car wash tunnel, drive through lane, vacuum parking spaces, and
landscaping. New site ingress and egress driveways would also be installed to improve circulation in the site vicinity. Thus, the site would be better utilized with the proposed
development.

LU Policy 6-11: Pursue new developments and businesses
that add to the City’s economic base, particularly those that generate sales tax and property tax increment revenue.

Consistent. Refer to response to LU Policy 6-1.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-3 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-1 [cont’d]
General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis
Applicable General Plan
Land Use Element Policies Project Consistency Analysis
STRATEGY No. 7: Implement the major areas of change identified in this Land Use Plan (Map LU-20).

LU Policy 7-8: Ensure infill development is compatiblewith surrounding established and planned uses.

Consistent. The proposed car wash facility is conditionally permitted in the Regional Highway District (CHW) zoning district, and would be compatible with adjacent uses, including existing commercial uses to the east and west of the site along East Pacific Coast Highway. While the project would require a zone change to rezone the northern portion of the site from Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S) to CHW, this portion of the site is already developed as part of the surface parking lot associated with the existing restaurant on-site and is separated from existing multi-family residences to the north by a brick masonry wall. Additionally, the project proposes to replace the existing wall with a 6.5-foot high decorative masonry wall and landscaping along the northern site perimeter to screen the car wash facility from the northern adjacent residential uses.

STRATEGY No. 9: Protect and enhance established neighborhoods.

LU Policy 9-1: Protect neighborhoods from the
encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have negative impacts on residential living
environments.

Consistent. Refer to response to LU Policy 7-8.

STRATEGY No. 10: Create complete neighborhoods with identifiable centers and a full range of supporting neighborhood- serving uses to meet the daily needs of residents.

LU Policy 10-2: Complete neighborhoods by allowing low- intensity commercial uses to locate along neighborhood
edges, in transition areas and at key intersections.

Consistent. The proposed car wash facility would be located along East Pacific Coast Highway (a major commercial
corridor) and adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood.

The car wash facility would function as a single-use
commercial development adjacent to other commercial uses along East Pacific Coast Highway.

STRATEGY No. 15: Foster community outreach and engagement in planning City projects and programs.

LU Policy 15-1: Inform and involve residents and facilitate neighborhood participation in implementing development
and infrastructure projects and other planning programs or tasks.

Consistent. In compliance with public commenting
requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act, this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been circulated to agencies and interested parties, including adjacent property owners, for a State-mandated 30-day public review period. Subsequently, public hearings regarding
project approval would take place and allow for additional public comment and involvement.

LU Policy 15-3: Consult with California Native American tribes early in the planning process to ensure their concerns are appropriately reflected in planning initiatives and projects.

Consistent. In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, Native American tribes were notified of the proposed project and opportunity to consult on the project to determine if project development would result in any adverse impact to known tribal cultural resources in the project area. Refer to Section

4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for a summary of the City’s tribal consultation efforts.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-4 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-1 [cont’d]
General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis
Applicable General Plan
Land Use Element Policies Project Consistency Analysis
STRATEGY No. 16: Prevent and reduce disproportionate environmental burdens affecting low-income and minority populations.

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.

Consistent. Noise modeling analysis was conducted to
evaluate the project’s short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts on sensitive uses nearby, including the adjacent residences. Refer to Section 4.13, Noise, for an analysis of the project’s construction and operational noise impacts.

STRATEGY No. 18: Increase open space in urban areas.

LU Policy 18-2: Enhance street corridors and spaces
between buildings by incorporating small green areas,
native and drought-tolerant landscaping and street trees.

Consistent. The proposed project wouldprovide landscaping improvements along East Pacific Coast Highway and
Gardenia Avenue. Landscaping would include a variety of trees and shrubs, including desert museum Palo Verde,
Brisbane box trees, fortnite lily, springtime Indian Hawthorn and bougainvillea, among others; refer to Exhibit 2-5,
Conceptual Landscape Plan
LU Policy 18-4: Increase the number of trees, first
prioritizing areas identified as tree deficient, to provide the maximum benefits of improved air quality, increased carbon dioxide sequestration, reduced stormwater runoff and
mitigated urban heat island effect.

Consistent. It is acknowledged that one existing palm tree along Gardenia Avenue would be removed as part of the
project. However, the project would provide seven 24-inch desert museum Palo Verde and five 24-inch Brisbane box
trees on-site.

STRATEGY No. 20: Preserve, restore and protect water bodies, natural areas and wildlife habitats.

LU Policy 20-5: Prevent stormwater runoff and pollutants from entering natural water bodies, wildlife habitats,
wetlands, rivers and the Pacific Ocean.

Consistent. The proposed project would install new catch basins and a stormwater collection system on-site to collect stormwater and car wash runoff from the facility. Collected runoff within the car wash tunnel would be reused through a reclaimed water system which would be designed to treat approximately 20 to 120 gallons per minute of reclaimed water. Approximately 60 to 85 percent of the reclaimed water would be treated and reused on-site.

LU Policy 20-9: Recycle or beneficially reuse a majority and growing proportion of the City’s wastewater supply
Consistent. Refer to response to LU Policy 20-5.

LU Policy 20-11: Coordinate with other agencies to reduce stormwater runoff by capturing runoff for groundwater
recharge, irrigation and recycling purposes.

Consistent. Refer to response to LU Policy 20-5.

Source: City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, December 2019.

As analyzed in Table 4.11-1, the project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-5 Land Use and Planning

MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
According to the City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map, the project site is zoned Regional Highway District (CHW).

Based on Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 21.32.020(D)(1), the CHW district allows mixed scale commercial uses located along major arterial streets and regional traffic corridors. According to LBMC Table 32-1, Uses In All Other Commercial Zoning Districts, the proposed car wash use is a conditionally permitted use in the CHW zone and thus, would require a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, it is acknowledged that the site is currently comprised of two lots. The northern lot is currently zoned Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S) while the southern lot is zoned CHW. The project requests a Lot Merger (to consolidate the two lots into one) and a Zone Change (to rezone the northern lot from R-3-S to CHW).

Table 4.11-2, CHW Zone Development Standards Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable development standards for the CHW zone. As shown, the project would be consistent with relevant LBMC standards, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for a discussion concerning the project’s consistency with other applicable policies governing scenic resources.

Table 4.11-2
CHW Zone Development Standards Consistency Analysis
Development
Standard CHW Zoning Requirement Proposed Project
Does Project
Satisfy
Requirement?
Building Setbacks
Front Street 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Side Street 10 feet 10 feet Yes
Adjacent to Side
Yard of
Residential
District
10 feet 5 feet Yes
Adjacent to
Nonresidential
District
5 feet 5 feet Yes
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet 24,083 square feet Yes Maximum Building
Height 28 feet (2 stories) 28 feet Yes
Required
Landscaping
All required yard areas, except
yards abutting alleys and yards
used for outdoor dining, shall
contain an area not less than 5 feet
in width planted with trees, shrubs
and/or groundcover.

As shown on Exhibit 2-3, Proposed
Site Plan, the project would plant
trees, shrubs, and groundcover along
a 10-foot wide landscaped area along
the southern and western project
boundary and along a 5-foot wide
landscaped area along the northern
project boundary. Although not
required, landscaping would also be
provided along the northeastern
project boundary abutting the eastern
alley.

Yes

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.11-6 Land Use and Planning
Table 4.11-2 [cont’d]
CHW Zone Development Standards Consistency Analysis
Development
Standard CHW Zoning Requirement Proposed Project
Does Project
Satisfy
Requirement?
Screening
(Adjacent to
Residential
Districts)
All commercial uses adjoining or
abutting a residential district shall be
screened by a solid fence or wall
not less than 6 feet, 6 inches in
height, except in the front yard of
the residential lot, where the fence
or wall shall be 3 feet in height.

The project would provide a 6.5 foot
tall decorative masonry wall along the
northern site perimeter that abuts
residential areas.

Yes
Off-Street Parking
Requirement
2 spaces per wash bay (for
purposes of belt driven facilities, the
conveyor length shall be divided by
18 to determine the number of wash
bays)
The proposed car wash tunnel would
be 100 feet in length and thus, the
project would be required to provide
12 parking spaces. The project would
provide 18 self-vacuum parking
stations (including one accessible
parking space).

Yes
Source: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. ORD-21-0035, enacted October 5, 2021.

It is acknowledged that the project would not meet the minimum 1.0 FAR requirement for the NSC-M PlaceType.

However, the proposed project would generally be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and CHW zone development standards under the Municipal Code. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.12-1 Mineral Resources

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County – South Half, the project site is designated Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4). MRZ-4 is defined as areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.1The project site is currently developed with an existing restaurant and associated surface parking lot. Construction and operations of the proposed car wash facility would not result in the loss of known mineral resources. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County – South Half, 1994.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.12-2 Mineral Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-1 Noise

4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The information presented in this analysis is based on and has been supplemented with the Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, prepared by Eilar Associates, Inc., dated December 2021; refer to Appendix C, Noise Study.

FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver.

Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.

Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.

There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time.

One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldnnoise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-2 Noise
Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
The State Office of Planning and Research Noise Element Guidelines include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The Noise Element Guidelines contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A noise environment of 50 CNEL to 60 CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses. The Office of Planning and Research recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate.

City of Long Beach
City of Long Beach General Plan
The City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) Noise Element was adopted in 1975 and provides a description of existing and projected future noise levels, and incorporates comprehensive goals, policies, and implementing actions. The following goals are applicable to the proposed project:

Goals Related to Construction and Industrial Noise:

The overall goal of the City is to respond to demands for a reasonably quiet environment which is compatible with both existing ambient noise levels and continued building and industrial development. More categorized goals are:

1. To reduce the level of noise exposure to the population caused by demolition and construction activities.

2. To reduce the level of outdoor noise exposure to the population generated by industries.

Long Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 8.80, Noise, of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) sets forth all noise regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the City. As outlined in Section 8.80.150 of the LBMC, maximum exterior noise levels are based on land use districts. According to the Noise District Map in the LBMC, the project site and surrounding uses are located within Noise District One. District One is defined as “predominantly residential with other land use types also present,” District Two is defined as “predominantly commercial with other land use types present,” and Districts Three and Four are defined as “predominantly industrial with other land types use also present.” Table 4.13-1, City of Long Beach Noise Limits, summarizes the exterior and interior noise limits for the various land use districts within the City.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-3 Noise
Table 4.13-1
City of Long Beach Noise Limits
Land Use District Exterior Noise Level (Leq) Interior Noise Level (Leq) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

District One 50 45 45 35
District Two 60 55 - 1 -1
District Three2 65 65 - 1 -1
District Four2 70 70 - 1 -1
Notes:

1. Interior noise limits vary for different uses within this district.

2. Districts Three and Four limits are intended primarily for use at their boundaries rather than for noise control within the district.

Source: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.80.160 and Section 8.80.170.

Additionally, exterior noise sources shall not exceed:

Standard 1: The noise standard for that land use district as specified in Table 4.13-1 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;
Standard 2: The noise standard plus five decibels for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;
Standard 3: The noise standard plus ten decibels for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
Standard 4: The noise standard plus 15 decibels for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
Standard 5: The noise standard plus 20 decibels or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time.

In accordance with the LBMC, if the existing measured ambient noise level exceeds the permissible level within any of the first four noise standard categories (Standards 1 through 4), the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in 5-decible increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category (Standard 5), the maximum allowable noise level shall be the measured ambient noise level.1 Furthermore, the LBMC provides a reduction of 5 dBA for steady high-pitched noise or repeated impulsive noises.2
LBMC Section 8.80.250, Exemption—Emergencies, exempts performance of emergency work from the noise standard.

LBMC Section 8.80.202, Construction Activity—Noise Regulations, applies to construction activities where a building or other related permit is required and issued by the Building Official. LBMC Section 8.80.202 includes the following restrictions:

Weekdays and Federal holidays: No person shall operate any tool or equipment used for construction, which produce loud or unusual noise which annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day on weekdays, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official. For purposes of this section, Federal holidays shall be considered weekdays.

Saturdays: No person shall operate or permit the operation of any tools or equipment used for construction, which produces loud or unusual noise that annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity 1 LBMC Section 8.80.150, Exterior noise limits—Sound levels by receiving land use district. 2 LBMC Section 8.80.160, Exterior noise limits—Correction for character of sound.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-4 Noise
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on Friday and 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official.

Sundays: No person shall operate any tool or equipment used for construction at any time on Sunday, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official or except for work authorized by permit issued by the Noise Control Officer.

LBMC Section 8.80.200 prohibits the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. The perception threshold as defined by the LBMC is

0.001 g’s (gravity) in the frequency range of 0-30 hertz (Hz) and 0.003 g’s in the frequency range of 30-100 Hz.3

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The primary existing noise source in the vicinity of the project site is traffic noise from East Pacific Coast Highway and Cherry Avenue. No other noise source is considered significant. The existing noise levels on-site can be determined by traffic noise modeling or through a noise measurement; this analysis uses both a traffic noise model and long-term on-site noise monitoring to determine existing ambient noise levels on-site.

Measured Noise Level
An on-site inspection and a traffic noise measurement were made on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 11, 2020 by Eilar Associates. The weather conditions were as follows: sunny skies, moderate humidity, and temperature in the low 70 degrees Fahrenheit, with winds at 9 miles per hour. A noise measurement was made along the south boundary of the project site, at approximately 44 feet north of the East Pacific Coast Highway centerline and approximately 188 feet west of the Cherry Avenue centerline. The sound level meter was field-calibrated immediately prior to the noise measurement and checked afterwards to ensure accuracy. All sound level measurements conducted and presented in this section, in accordance with the regulations, were made with sound level meters that conform to the American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). All instruments are maintained with National Institute of Standards and Technology traceable calibration, per the manufacturers’ standards.

The primary source of noise during the measurement was traffic on East Pacific Coast Highway and Cherry Avenue.

Peak noise levels measured on-site were observed to be from traffic noise sources on East Pacific Coast Highway.

The microphone was placed at approximately five feet above the existing grade. Traffic volumes for East Pacific Coast Highway were recorded for automobiles, medium-size trucks, and large trucks during the measurement period. After a 10-minute continuous sound level measurement, no changes in the Leqwere observable and results were recorded.

The measured noise level was 75.2 dBA Leq.

Additionally, a long-term noise measurement was made beginning the afternoon of Monday, December 21, 2020 and running through the afternoon of Tuesday, December 22, 2020. The purpose of these measurements was to obtain noise information for the site during operating hours, which are expected to be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The noise measurement performed is expected to be representative of the typical noise exposure at the site and encompasses the primary source of noise, which is traffic noise. The measurement was performed at approximately six feet above ground level, where the meter was placed in a bush for security purposes. The long-term meter was placed at approximately 155 feet north of the East Pacific Coast Highway centerline and approximately 35 feet east of the Gardenia Avenue centerline. During the proposed hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., long-term measured noise levels were observed to range from a minimum of 60.3 dBA between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on December 22, 2020 to a maximum of 71.6 dBA between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on December 22, 2020. Refer to Appendix C for noise measurement details.
3 One “g” is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface, approximately 9.8 meters per second squared.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-5 Noise
Calculated Noise Level
A calculated noise level within the traffic noise model (Leq) was compared with the measured traffic noise level to determine if adjustments or corrections (calibration) should be applied to the traffic noise prediction model. Adjustments are intended to account for site-specific differences, such as reflection and absorption, which may be greater or lesser than accounted for in the model.

The measured noise level of 75.2 dBA Leqat approximately 44 feet north of the East Pacific Coast Highway centerline and approximately 188 feet west of the Cherry Avenue centerline was compared to the calculated (modeled) noise level of 73.0 dBA Leqfor the same anticipated traffic flow. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guide4, a traffic noise model is considered validated if the measured and calculated noise impacts differ by three decibels or less. No adjustment was deemed necessary to model peak hour noise levels for the proposed building as the difference between the measured and calculated levels was found to be less than three decibels.

Minimum Daytime Ambient Traffic Noise Levels
The LBMC states that, if the measured ambient noise level at residential or commercial properties exceeds the noise limits, the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in five decibel increments as appropriate to encompass the ambient noise level. Due to high exterior noise levels on-site, an exterior traffic noise analysis was performed to determine ambient noise levels on-site and at surrounding property lines, to determine whether it would be appropriate to raise the exterior noise exposure limits. Ambient noise levels were calculated for surrounding receivers, as it was deemed infeasible to take long-term measurements at off-site locations due to access restrictions. Minimum daytime ambient traffic noise levels were calculated at surrounding properties to determine existing noise levels on-site. Table

4.13-2, Minimum Daytime Ambient Traffic Noise Levels and Adjusted Noise Limits, shows calculated ambient noise levels and adjusted noise limits. Refer to Appendix C for a graphical representation of receiver locations.

Table 4.13-2
Minimum Daytime Ambient Traffic Noise Levels and Adjusted Noise Limits

Receiver Receiver Location Presumed Noise
Limit (dBA)
Calculated Ambient
Noise Level (dBA)
Adjusted Daytime
Noise Limit (dBA)
R1 North Residential – First Floor 50 57.9 60
R2 North Residential – Second Floor 50 58.5 60
R3 North Residential – First Floor 50 57.5 60
R4 North Residential – Second Floor 50 58.2 60
R5 Northwest Residential – First Floor 50 58.9 60
R6 Northwest Residential – Second Floor 50 59.5 60
C7 East Commercial 50 64.2 65
C8 East Commercial 50 69.9 70
C9 South Commercial 50 70.9 75
R10 South Residential – First Floor 50 71.2 75
R11 East Residential – First Floor 50 59.1 60
R12 East Residential – Second Floor 50 60.1 65
Source: Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021. 4 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guide, December 2011.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-6 Noise
As shown in Table 4.13-2, the calculated adjusted daytime noise limit for residential uses is consistent with the minimum measured ambient noise level of 60.3 dBA during proposed hours of operation. As R10 is located along East Pacific Coast Highway, the ambient traffic noise levels are significantly higher than residential receivers that are located further away from East Pacific Coast Highway; this higher noise limit is in-line with the higher anticipated noise levels at that receiver. Therefore, these ambient noise calculations are determined to be accurate for use in this analysis. a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; noise that is considered a nuisance to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably. Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population.

As stated above, the LBMC includes regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the City. As outlined in the LBMC, maximum noise levels are based on land use districts.

SHORT-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
The City limits construction activity to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Federal holidays, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays. During permissible construction hours, the LBMC does not have a specific noise limit with which construction noise must comply. However, the General Plan gives a construction noise limit of 75 dBA Leq.

On-site construction activities are expected to consist of the following stages: demolition/excavation/grading, slab work/utilities, building construction, and paving/building finishes. Construction noise levels were calculated at surrounding receivers to the north, south (across East Pacific Coast Highway), east, and west (across Gardenia Avenue). Any other potentially noise-sensitive receivers are located at a greater distance from construction activity, and therefore would be exposed to lesser noise impacts due to distance attenuation and shielding provided by intervening structures.

Construction noise sources were placed near the center of the work area to evaluate typical impacts to the surrounding receivers as equipment moves around the property. Noise calculations consider typical duty cycles of equipment, to account for periods of activity and inactivity on the site. Noise levels for each stage of construction are shown in Table

4.13-3, Temporary Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Property Lines. Refer to Appendix C for detailed calculations and a graphical representation of construction noise source and receiver locations.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-7 Noise
Table 4.13-3
Temporary Construction Noise Levels at Surrounding Property Lines Activity Stage Equipment Receiver Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) Demolition/Excavation/Grading
Backhoe Loader, Dump
Truck, Excavator, Scissor
Lift
R1 (West) 67.7
R2 (North) 70.0
R3 (East) 71.7
R4 (South) 63.9
Slab Work/Utilities Excavator, Scissor Lift
R1 (West) 59.0
R2 (North) 61.3
R3 (East) 63.0
R4 (South) 55.2
Building Construction Scissor Lift, Trailer Crane
R1 (West) 57.8
R2 (North) 60.1
R3 (East) 61.9
R4 (South) 54.1
Paving/Building Finishes Paver, Roller (Non-
Vibratory), Scissor Lift
R1 (West) 67.7
R2 (North) 70.0
R3 (East) 71.7
R4 (South) 63.9
Source: Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021.

As shown in Table 4.13-3, construction noise levels are not expected to exceed the threshold of 75 dBA. With operating hours limited to those permitted by the City, temporary construction noise impacts are expected to be less than significant at surrounding properties.

Although noise impacts are expected to remain in compliance with construction noise limits, Mitigation Measure NOI- 1 would be implemented to further reduce construction noise levels by following best practices. With adherence to the best practice construction noise control techniques in Mitigation Measure NOI-1, temporary construction noise impacts are expected to be further reduced below the less than significant levels measured at surrounding properties as set forth in Table 4.13-3.

LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
Mobile Noise
Project-generated traffic impacts were evaluated to determine whether noise impacts from the project site would be significant. Calculations were performed to determine the approximate change in noise exposure at surrounding receivers due to project-generated traffic. A significant direct impact occurs when project traffic combines with existing traffic and causes a doubling of sound energy, which is an increase of 3 dB. Direct impacts are assessed by comparing existing traffic volumes to existing plus project traffic volumes. Project-generated traffic noise increases are shown in Table 4.13-4, Anticipated Traffic Noise Increases with Project-Generated Traffic.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-8 Noise
Table 4.13-4
Anticipated Traffic Noise Increases with Project-Generated Traffic

Roadway Traffic Volume (ADT) Noise Level
Increase (dBA)Existing Project-Generated
East Pacific Coast Highway 36,500 775 0.1
Cherry Avenue 8,700 775 0.4
Source: Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021.

As shown in Table 4.13-4, the noise level increase from project-generated traffic is expected to be less than 3 dB at all roadways. For this reason, project-generated traffic noise levels are expected to be less than significant.

Stationary Noise
Noise levels of the proposed on-site mechanical equipment were calculated using Computer Aided Noise Abatement (Cadna) Version 2021 at surrounding properties. These receivers represent the nearest affected noise-sensitive locations, and therefore, any other potential receivers would be exposed to lower noise levels as they would receive additional attenuation due to distance and shielding from intervening structures. Equipment noise levels were calculated considering shielding provided by the proposed buildings on-site. The project would construct a 6.5-foot- high masonry wall along the northern property line, as detailed in Project Design Feature PDF-1, which was considered in the calculations. Ground level receivers (R1, R3, R5, C7, C8, C9, R10, and R11) were calculated at a height of five feet above grade. To estimate the noise levels at second-floor facades of residential buildings to the north, east, and northwest, receivers R2, R4, R6, and R12 were calculated at a height of 15 feet above grade. Refer to Appendix C for a graphical representation of evaluated receiver locations.

In addition, appropriate duty cycles were applied to the equipment operating on-site. The intercom equipment was analyzed as being used for 30 minutes out of each hour. That assumption is expected to be a conservative estimate.

The intercom feature is expected to operate only occasionally and for very brief intervals to address customer questions. By default, the pay station operation would be silent unless and only to the extent an audio option is selected by the user. In order to illustrate the maximum impact scenario, the car wash dryers, vacuum hoses, and central vacuum unit are assumed to be in operation constantly and were evaluated as being operational during the entire hour.

It should be noted that, based on professional experience, noise impacts from idling vehicles on-site are expected to be more than 10 dBA below impacts from on-site mechanical equipment. For this reason, noise impacts from idling vehicles would not be expected to increase the overall projected operational noise impacts as evaluated herein, and this noise source is considered to be insignificant, compared to other, more prominent noise sources. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4.13-5, Calculated Noise Levels for Proposed Equipment – Current Design. Refer to Appendix C for receiver locations and equipment noise contours.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-9 Noise
Table 4.13-5
Calculated Noise Levels for Proposed Equipment – Current Design

Receiver Receiver Location Exterior Noise Limit (dBA) Calculated Equipment Noise Level (dBA)
R1 North Residential – First Floor 60 57.0
R2 North Residential – Second Floor 60 56.1
R3 North Residential – First Floor 60 51.2
R4 North Residential – Second Floor 60 57.5
R5 Northwest Residential – First Floor 60 54.6
R6 Northwest Residential – Second Floor 60 52.9
C7 East Commercial 65 53.4
C8 East Commercial 70 69.1
C9 South Commercial 75 65.7
R10 South Residential – First Floor 75 51.4
R11 East Residential – First Floor 60 51.5
R12 East Residential – Second Floor 65 50.9
Source: Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021.

As discussed above, the project would construct a 6.5-foot-high masonry wall along the northern property line, as detailed in Project Design Feature PDF-1. Additionally, any windows proposed in the wall of the car wash tunnel should be appropriately sealed with acoustical sealant, also detailed in Project Design Feature PDF-1. As shown in Table

4.13-5, with the proposed 6.5-foot-high property line wall along the northern property line, constructed with the dimensions proposed, calculated noise levels are expected to meet the City’s requirements as designed, and proposed mechanical noise levels are expected to comply with the strictest applicable noise limits at all nearby property lines.

The projected noise levels fall below the applicable exterior noise limit at all receiver locations. Any other noise-sensitive receivers are located at a greater distance from proposed equipment and would be exposed to lesser noise levels due to distance attenuation and shielding provided by intervening structures.

In addition, exterior noise impacts at off-site residential receivers were reviewed for compliance with the applicable interior noise limits articulated at LBMC Section 8.80.170. Contemporary exterior building construction is expected to achieve at least 15 decibels of exterior-to-interior noise attenuation with windows opened, according to the U.S. EPA5, such that exterior noise impacts of 60 dBA or less would result in noise impacts that comply with the 45 dBA interior daytime noise limit. As exterior operational noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA at residential receivers, the project would not cause interior noise limits to be exceeded at off-site residential receiver locations.

Lastly, minimum ambient noise levels were calculated at sensitive receiver locations and were combined with the projected equipment noise impacts in terms of dBA to determine the cumulative noise impact and the increase in ambient noise levels resulting from operation of the project. Results are shown in Table 4.13-6, Calculated Cumulative Noise Impacts at Surrounding Property Lines.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-10 Noise
Table 4.13-6
Calculated Cumulative Noise Impacts at Surrounding Property Lines

Receiver Receiver Location
Noise Level (dBA)
Impact Ambient Project-
GeneratedCumulative Ambient
Increase
R1 North Residential – First Floor57.9 57.0 60.2 2.6 Less than Significant R2 North Residential – Second Floor58.5 56.1 60.5 2.0 Less than Significant R3 North Residential – First Floor57.5 51.2 58.4 0.9 Less than Significant R4 North Residential – Second Floor58.2 57.5 60.9 2.7 Less than Significant R5 Northwest Residential – First Floor 58.9 54.6 60.3 1.4 Less than Significant R6 Northwest Residential – Second Floor 59.5 52.9 60.4 0.9 Less than Significant C7 East Commercial 64.2 53.4 64.5 0.3 Less than Significant C8 East Commercial 69.9 69.1 72.5 2.6 Less than Significant C9 South Commercial 70.9 65.7 72.0 1.1 Less than Significant R10 South Residential – First Floor 71.2 51.4 71.2 0.0 Less than Significant R11 East Residential – First Floor 59.1 51.5 59.8 0.7 Less than Significant R12 East Residential – Second Floor 60.1 50.9 60.6 0.5 Less than Significant Source: Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021.

The results in Table 4.13-6 demonstrate that the increase in ambient noise levels from on-site operation, using conservative operating assumptions for all on-site machinery, and incorporating existing and projected ambient noise levels, would result in a less than 3 dBA increase as measured at each of the surrounding property lines. Any other noise-sensitive receivers are located at a greater distance from proposed equipment and would be exposed to lesser noise levels due to distance attenuation and shielding provided by intervening structures. Impacts from project operations stationary noise are considered to be less than significant with Project Design Feature PDF-1 incorporated.

Project Design Features:

PDF-1 In order to reduce operational noise, a minimum 6.5-foot-high wall shall be constructed along the project site northern property line. The wall at the north property line must be constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, with no cracks or gaps through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks must be filled or caulked. Additionally, any windows proposed in the wall of the car wash tunnel shall be appropriately sealed with acoustical sealant. The wall along the northern property line shall be prioritized in the construction process and shall be constructed as soon as feasible.

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, that the project complies with the following:

Turn off construction equipment when not in use.

Limit the use of enunciators or public address systems, except for emergency notifications.

Equipment used in construction shall be maintained in proper operating condition, and all loads shall be properly secured to prevent rattling and banging.

Schedule work to avoid simultaneous construction activities where both are generating high noise levels.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-11 Noise
Use equipment with effective mufflers.

Minimize the use of backup alarms.

Per Section 8.80.202 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, construction shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Federal holidays, and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays.

Include the following standard note on the Improvement/Grading Plan, or as an attached form: During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of five minutes for all diesel powered equipment.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The demolition/excavation/grading stage of construction has the potential to generate the highest vibration levels of any phase of construction, as excavation and grading activities would take place closest to sensitive receivers and may consist of the use of a small excavator. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual6, a small bulldozer generates a peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.003 inches/second at a distance of 25 feet from equipment; as the FTA Manual does not give levels for a small excavator, a small bulldozer was used as it is considered to be comparable to a small excavator. The evaluation of an impact’s significance can be determined by reviewing both the likelihood of annoyance to individuals as well as the potential for damage to existing structures. According to the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual7, the appropriate threshold for damage to modern residential structures is a PPV of 0.5 inches/second. Annoyance is assessed based on levels of perception, with a PPV of 0.01 being considered “barely perceptible,” 0.04 inches/second as “distinctly perceptible,” 0.1 inches/second as “strongly perceptible,” and 0.4 inches/second as “severe.”
It is estimated that the excavator would be closest to the nearest sensitive residential receptors when it is five feet from the residential structure, near the north boundary of the site. At this distance, the PPV would be approximately 0.034 inches/second at the residential receiver. This level of vibration falls well below the building damage PPV criteria of 0.5 inches/second. The impact falls between the “barely perceptible” and “distinctly perceptible” PPV criteria for annoyance. Once the equipment is twelve feet from the nearest receiver, the impact would fall below the “barely perceptible” PPV criteria for annoyance. As construction vibration would occur for only a short period of time when work is performed near the eastern boundary of the property, and during such limited period the work is not anticipated to cause damage to off-site buildings, and would only approach the threshold of “distinctly perceptible” vibration, temporary construction vibration impacts are not anticipated to be “excessive” and therefore, impacts in this regard are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located slightly less than two miles southwest of the Long Beach Airport. Though the project site is located within two miles of the airport, the project is not located within the noise 6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 7 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.13-12 Noise
contours.8 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels from such uses.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
8 Long Beach Airport Terminal Area Improvement Project, Year 2004 CNEL Contours with 11 Additional Air Carrier and 25 Additional Commuter Flights, 2005.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.14-1 Population and Housing

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project can induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and/or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

No residential uses would be developed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not induce unplanned direct population growth in the City through new housing development.

The proposed project would involve the construction of an automated car wash facility, and is anticipated to generate approximately 10 jobs.1 The project is expected to generate jobs for local City residents. However, based on a conservative estimate of 10 employees relocating to Long Beach and the City’s average household size of 2.77, project implementation would result in a population increase of approximately 27 persons.2 Based on this estimation, the project-generated population would represent less than 0.01 percent of the City’s current estimated population of 467,730 persons.3
Potential population growth impacts are also assessed based on a project’s consistency with adopted plans that have addressed growth management from a local and regional standpoint. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts estimate the City’s population to reach 489,600 persons by 2045, representing a total increase of 18,700 between 2016 and 2045.4 SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon long-range development assumptions (i.e., General Plans) of the relevant jurisdiction. The project’s anticipated population increase (27 persons) would represent less than 0.01 percent of the City’s anticipated population growth by 2045.

Although the project may result in direct population growth, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth exceeding existing local conditions (less than 0.01 percent increase) and/or regional populations projections (less than 0.01 percent of the City’s total projected 2040 population). The proposed use is also permitted under the site’s current land use designation and thus, has been considered as part of the General Plan buildout assumptions. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. 1 Pat West LLC, Economic and Qualitative Impacts Study Star Express Car Wash 1911 E. Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, CA. 2 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 1, 2021. 3 Ibid.
4 Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal Technical Report: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.14-2 Population and Housing
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the demolition of existing residences. Therefore, project implementation would not displace any existing housing or persons. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.15-1 Public Services

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) provides fire protection within Long Beach and has 23 stations throughout the City. The nearest station to the project site is Fire Station 10 located at 1417 Peterson Avenue, approximately 0.43-mile to the southwest.1 The proposed project involves demolishing an existing restaurant and constructing an automated carwash facility. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the project is anticipated to generate approximately ten jobs and would not result in a substantial increase in population. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial impacts to fire protection services and response times and would not require the construction of new or physically altered fire facilities. The project would also be subject to compliance with the fire provisions specified in LBMC Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, which would reduce potential building fire hazards. Overall, project implementation is not anticipated to adversely impact existing LBFD services upon compliance with existing regulations. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) provides law enforcement services to the City, including the project site. The closest LBPD station is the East Division station located at 3800 East Willow Street, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site.
1 Long Beach Fire Department, Station Locations, https://www.longbeach.gov/fire/about-us/station-locations/, accessed December 10, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.15-2 Public Services
The proposed project would involve the construction of a new automated carwash facility. As stated, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the City’s population in a manner that would increase the need for additional police protection services to the project site. Further, the project would be subject to development fees and site plan review by the City to ensure that it meets the City’s safety requirements provided under LBMC Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
3) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) provides school services within the project area. LBUSD has 85 school in the cities of Long Beach, Lakewood, Signal Hill and Avalon (Catalina Island).2 No residential development is proposed that could directly increase student population within LBUSD’s service area.

Further, the project would be subject to the requirements of Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50, which allows school districts to collect development impact fees to minimize potential impacts to school districts as a result of new development. Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, the project’s demands on school services would be fully offset through the collection of school fees imposed through the Education Code. As such, a less than significant impact would result in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
4) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department, the City maintains 169 parks with 26 community centers, among other programs and services.3 Nearby parks include Chittick Field Dee Andrews Sports Complex, located at 1900 Walnut Avenue approximately 0.04-mile west of the project site, and Rotary Centennial, located at 1729 Junipero Avenue approximately 0.20-mile southeast of the project site.

The project proposes to construct an automated carwash facility on a site currently developed with a restaurant. Given the nature of the proposed use, the project would not result in a substantial increase in population within the City. The project would also be subject to compliance with applicable development fees that would support park and recreational facilities under Municipal Code Chapter 18.18, Park and Recreation Facilities Fee. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
5) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. Library services within Long Beach is provided by the Long Beach Public Library (LBPL). The closest LBPL branch library to the project site is the Mark Twain Neighborhood Library, located at 1401 East Anaheim Street, approximately 0.54 miles southwest. Given the nature of the proposed use, the project would not result in a substantial increase in population within the City. Therefore, demand for other public facilities, including library services, would not be substantial. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2 Long Beach Unified School District, School Finder, https://www.lbschools.net/Schools/finder.cfm, accessed December 10, 2021. 3 City of Long Beach, Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department Website, https://www.longbeach.gov/park/, accessed December 10, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.16-1 Recreation

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). The project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for parks or other recreational facilities and would not result in physical deterioration of these facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. No impacts would result in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.16-2 Recreation
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-1 Transportation

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
This section is primarily based upon the Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project at 1911 E. Pacific Coast Highway (Trip Generation Analysis), prepared by LSA Associates and dated December 20, 2021; refer to Appendix D, Trip Generation Analysis.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

ROADWAY FACILITIES
Refer to Response 4.17(b) below regarding project impacts on roadway facilities.

TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Transit services in the project area are provided by Long Beach Transit (Routes 21, 22, 23, 171, 172, 173, 174, and 175). Several bus stops are located along East Pacific Coast Highway, the closest of which is approximately 230 feet to the east of the site near the intersection of East Pacific Coast Highway and Cherry Avenue.

Long Beach Transit Routes 21, 22, and 23 provide north-south local bus service between downtown Long Beach and Metro Green Line Lakewood Station along Cherry Avenue. Bus stops are located east of the project site at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and East Pacific Coast Highway. Route 21 operates weekday northbound and southbound service with morning and afternoon headways of 60 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 80 minutes. Route 22 operates weekday service with northbound and southbound service in the morning period with headways of 30 to 60 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 40 to 60 minutes. Route 23 operates weekday service with northbound and southbound service in the morning period with headways of 60 to 90 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 90 minutes.1 Long Beach Transit Routes 171 and 175 provide east-west local bus service between Cabrillo and California State University, Long Beach along East Pacific Coast Highway. Bus stops are located east of the project site at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and East Pacific Coast Highway. Route 171 operates weekday eastbound and 1 Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 21,22,23, https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Route- 20-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-2 Transportation
westbound service with morning and afternoon headways of 40 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 45 minutes. Route 175 operates only weekday service with eastbound and westbound service in the morning period with headways of 40 minutes.2
Long Beach Transit Routes 172, 173 and 174 provide north-south local bus service between downtown Long Beach and the Norwalk Station in the City of Norwalk along East Pacific Coast Highway. Bus stops are located east of the project site at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and East Pacific Coast Highway. Route 172 operates weekday northbound and southbound service with morning and afternoon headways of 30 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 40 to 60 minutes. Route 173 operates only weekday service with northbound and southbound service in the morning period with headways of 30 to 60 minutes; weekend service is provided with headways of approximately 45 minutes. Route 174 operates only three northbound trips per weekday; Saturday service is provided with headways of approximately 60 minutes; Sunday and holiday service operates only two trips per day.3 An existing Class III Bike Route is provided along East Pacific Coast Highway that connects to a Class IV Protected Bike Lane to the east of the Traffic Circle roundabout.4 Pedestrian sidewalks are provided along the project frontage on East Pacific Coast Highway and along Gardenia Avenue. An alley bounds the project’s eastern boundary and is an alley accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles to the rear garages and yards of existing multi-family residences to the north and northwest of the site.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the project may temporarily impact transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project involves demolishing the existing on-site restaurant and associated surface parking lot, and constructing an automated express car wash facility and associated site improvements. Temporary partial lane closures along Gardenia Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, and/or the eastern alley may be required during project construction activities; however, no full lane closures would be required. The Applicant would be required to implement a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to maintain vehicular traffic flow, transit, bicyclist, and pedestrian access, and emergency access during the construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). The TMP would include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the use of a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. Additionally, bicycle lanes, pedestrian sidewalks, and bus stops would remain open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity and service. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project would not conflict with existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Operations
At project completion, operations of the car wash facility would not conflict with any program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the City’s existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian network. The car wash facility operations would occur within the project boundary and surrounding roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit facilities would be restored to pre-project conditions upon the completion of construction activities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

TRA-1 Prior to project construction activities, the project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for approval by the City of Long Beach Traffic Engineer. The TMP shall include measures such as 2 Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 171, 175, https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Route- 171-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021.
3 Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 172, 173, 174 , https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Route-170-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021. 4 City of Long Beach, Bicycle Master Plan, A Supplement to the Mobility Element, December 2016.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-3 Transportation
construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the use of a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. The TMP shall specify that one direction of travel in each direction must always be maintained along Gardenia Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, and the eastern alley throughout project construction. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian sidewalks, and bus stops shall remain open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact. The Trip Generation Analysis evaluates the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts in accordance with the City of Long Beach Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (City Guidelines; June 2020), specifically Section 2, VMT Analysis to Satisfy SB 743 Requirements and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b). Based on the City Guidelines, land use projects that meet any of the screening thresholds based on size, location, proximity to transit or trip-making potential are presumed to result in a less than significant impact in regard to VMT.

The project’s estimated trip generation was calculated using trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) for Land Use Code 948 (Automated Car Wash) and Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-down] Restaurant). Table 4.17-1, Project Trip Generation, details the project’s trip generation. As shown, taking into account the reduction in trips associated with the existing restaurant building on-site, the project is anticipated to generate approximately 453 net average daily trips, including 39 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 48 trips in the p.m. peak hour during an average weekday.

Table 4.17-1
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Buildout Average Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates
Automated Car Wash
ITE Land Use Code 948 775.00 19.38 19.37 38.75 38.75 38.75 77.50 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
ITE Land Use Code 932 107.20 5.26 4.31 9.57 5.52 3.53 9.05 Trip Generation Summary
Proposed Uses
Automated Car Wash 1 Tunnel 775 20 19 39 39 39 78
Existing Trip Generation
Sit-Down Restaurant (3.296 TSF) (322) 0 0 0 (18) (12) (30) NET TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS 453 20 19 39 21 27 48
Source: LSA Associates, Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project, Table A, December 20, 2021.

As detailed in the City Guidelines, the City has an established screening threshold of 500 net new daily trips to require a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and VMT analysis. In addition, the City Guidelines state that, at a minimum, the area to be studies in the TIA shall generally include streets on which the project would add 50 or more peak hour trips. Small land development projects that generate fewer than 500 net new daily trips and fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips are presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. As shown in Table 4.17-1, the project is projected to generate approximately 453 net daily trips, including 39 net new trips in the a.m. peak hour and 48 net new trips in the p.m. peak hour. Given that the project would not exceed the established screening threshold, a TIA and VMT analysis are not required, and the project would result in a less than significant impact in this regard.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-4 Transportation
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose changes to the City’s circulation system, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, and would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways (e.g., farm equipment).

Site access would be provided via an existing full-access driveway on East Pacific Coast Highway that would be converted to an exit-only driveway. An existing full-access driveway on the eastern alley would also be converted to an exit-only driveway, and a new entry-only driveway would be provided along Gardenia Avenue; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Site Plan. Regional access via East Pacific Coast Highway would not change as part of the proposed project, but the converted (exit-only) driveways on East Pacific Coast Highway and the eastern alley and the inbound-only driveway on Gardenia Avenue would serve to minimize potential conflicts between inbound project vehicles and westbound through vehicles on East Pacific Coast Highway. As such, the project would provide a beneficial improvement to circulation in the site vicinity and would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Queuing Assessment
Based on information provided by the Applicant, an individual automated car wash typically takes approximately two minutes per vehicle, which suggests that 30 vehicles could be washed in one hour at the proposed facility. However, the proposed design of the 100-foot car wash tunnel could accommodate four to five vehicles in the tunnel at the same time. As such, based on typical operations, the proposed project has a maximum throughput capacity of 120 vehicles per hour.

In addition, the drive through lane (measured from the Gardenia Avenue sidewalk to the entrance of the car wash tunnel) has an on-site queue distance of 208 feet and could accommodate up to eight vehicles. As noted previously, vehicles would enter the project site from Gardenia Avenue and exit towards East Pacific Coast Highway or the eastern alley. As such, no queuing issues would occur along East Pacific Coast Highway or the eastern alley.

Regarding potential queuing onto Gardenia Avenue, as shown in Table 4.17-1, the proposed project would have a peak hour inbound volume of 21 vehicles. With a proposed on-site queue distance of 208 feet prior to entering the car wash tunnel, 100 feet of storage length within the car wash tunnel, and a maximum throughput capacity of 120 washed vehicles per hour, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in car wash queues extending onto any public streets, including East Pacific Coast Highway, Gardenia Avenue, or the eastern alley. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards associated with potential project queuing and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction activities could temporarily impact adjacent roadway rights-of-way (e.g., through partial lane closures). However, as stated, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require a TMP be prepared and implemented to ensure traffic flow and emergency access are maintained during the construction phase. As stated, the TMP would include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the use of a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. Upon implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, construction-related impacts to emergency access in the project area would be reduced to less than significant levels.

At construction completion, the project site would be accessed via a new entry-only driveway on Gardenia Avenue and the existing driveways on East Pacific Coast Highway and the eastern alley would be converted from full-access to

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-5 Transportation
exit-only. Thus, the project would provide a beneficial improvement to circulation in the site vicinity and emergency access to the site vicinity would not be adversely impacted. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.17-6 Transportation
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or

2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these amendments are addressed within this environmental document.

In compliance with AB 52, the City of Long Beach distributed letters on November 22, 2021 to Native American tribes notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project; refer to Appendix E, AB 52 Consultation Documentation. The tribes were identified based on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) or were tribes that had previously requested to be notified of future projects proposed by the City.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or No Impact. As detailed in Response 4.5(a), no historic resources or sites listed or eligible for listing in a State or local register of historic resources are located on the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to historic tribal cultural resources defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

As stated, in accordance with AB 52, the City distributed letters on November 22, 2021 to Native American tribes notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. The tribes had 30 days to respond to the City’s request for consultation. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) formally requested consultation with the City within the 30 days. A consultation meeting was held on February 24, 2022 between the Tribe and City staff.

The Tribe stated that the Tribe is a California Native American tribe with an ancestral connection (higher degree of connection than traditionally and cultural affiliated) to the project area as the Tribe members are lineal descendants to the villages within and around the project area. The Tribe indicated that the project site is located within and around sacred communities and adjacent to sacred water courses and major traditional trade routes and thus, there is a high potential for the project-related activities to impact tribal cultural resources that could still be present within the soils from prehistoric activities that occurred within and around the Tribe’s tribal cultural landscapes. To avoid impacting or destroying tribal cultural resources that may be inadvertently unearthed during the project's ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a qualified Native American Monitor is present during site disturbance activities. If evidence of potential subsurface tribal cultural resources is found during ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure that activities in the vicinity of the find are halted, appropriate parties are notified, and appropriate evaluation and treatment of said resource(s) is implemented. To avoid impacting or destroying human remains and/or burial goods that may be inadvertently unearthed during project ground disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would ensure activities in the vicinity of the find are halted, appropriate parties are notified, and appropriate evaluation and treatment of said resource(s) is conducted. If the human remains are determined to be Native American in origin, Mitigation Measure TCR-3 would ensure the Most Likely Descendant is notified and appropriate treatment of the remains is applied. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

TCR-1 The project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe). The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). Ground-disturbing activity shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City of

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.18-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
Long Beach Development Services prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground- disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCRs), including, but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., collectively, TCRs, as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City of Long Beach Development Services upon written request to the Tribe.

On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of contact for the project Applicant/City of Long Beach Development Services that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Tribe to the project Applicant/City of Long Beach Development Services that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Tribe monitor. The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural, and/or historic purposes.

TCR-2 Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the County Coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the County Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Tribe monitor deems necessary [CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).]).

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.18-4 Tribal Cultural Resources
school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

TCR-3 As the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Tribe) is the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented for burials and funerary remains. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project Applicant and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on- site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the Native American Heritage Commission. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact.

WATER
Water services for the project site are currently provided by the City of Long Beach Water District (LBWD). To meets its customer’s needs, the LBWD uses a combination of groundwater, recycled water, and surface water purchased water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) in northern California.1 According to the LBWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s water demand in 2015 was approximately 55,206 acre-feet per year (AFY), and is projected to increase to approximately 59,106 AFY by 2040. The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2040. Based on the analysis, LBWD would be able to provide adequate water supply to its service area under normal, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year scenarios through 2040. The UWMP accounts for increased demand as growth within the City occurs.

The proposed project would demolish the existing on-site restaurant and associated surface parking lot, and construct an automated car wash facility. The project would install new commercial, irrigation, and fire water lines on-site to connect to existing LBWD water facilities in East Pacific Coast Highway. Payment of standard LBWD water connection fees and ongoing user fees would ensure the project’s impacts on existing water facilities are adequately offset. 1 Long Beach Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LBWD-2015-UWMP- FINAL-Board-Adopted-3.pdf, accessed December 13, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems
Additionally, the project would be required to comply with all applicable construction design requirements and fees associated with new water connections per LBWD requirements.

The project proposes to utilize a reclaimed water system that reuses water recovered by the drainage system in the wash bay. Specifically, the reclaimed water system would utilize cyclone separators to remove solids, oils, and grease, and one of two methods (air sparger or enzyme/ozone addition) to control odor and biological growth. Air spargers add oxygen to the tank water to control anaerobic bacteria growth while enzyme/ozone addition kills bacteria. The reclaimed water system is designed to treat approximately 30 to 120 gallons per minute of reclaimed water and typically allows for the treatment and reuse of approximately 60 to 85 percent of water on-site.

As stated in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gases, and based on data from the Western Car Wash Association, a professional car wash with a water reclamation system consumes up to 12 gallons of water per vehicle.2 The proposed project would generate 775 trips per day. As a conservative analysis, all of the trips were considered to use the car wash system and each vehicle would consume 12 gallons of water. The project would also comply with the CALGreen Code requirements by installing low-flow plumbing fixtures, water-efficient irrigation system, as well as drought-tolerant landscaping. Overall, the project is anticipated to consume approximately 8,027 gallons per day, or approximately 8.99 AFY. As stated, the City’s water demand in 2015 was approximately 55,206 AFY and the LBWD’s UWMP anticipates the water demand in Long Beach to increase by 3,900 AFY to approximately 59,106 AFY by 2040. The project’s anticipated 8.99 AFY would be approximately 0.23 percent of LBWD’s anticipated increase in water demand. As such, it is not anticipated that project implementation would require construction of new or expanded water facilities that could result in substantial environmental impacts. Further, as previously stated, the project Applicant would be required to pay standard LBWD water connection fees and ongoing user fees to ensure project-generated water demand is adequately offset. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

WASTEWATER
Wastewater services for the project site is provided by the LBWD. The LBWD operates and maintains approximately 765 miles of sanitary sewer lines, delivering over 40 million gallons per day (gpd) to Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) facilities located on the north and south sides of the City. Currently, a majority of the City’s wastewater is delivered to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) of the LACSD. The remaining portion of the City’s wastewater is delivered to the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant of the LACSD. JWPCP is located approximately

6.7 miles northwest of the project site at 24501 South Figueroa Street in the City of Long Beach. The JWPCP is the largest of the LACSD’s wastewater treatment plants and provides both primary and secondary treatment for a design capacity of 400 million gallons of wastewater per day.

LACSD provides wastewater generation factors for various land use types. Commercial (Car Wash [Tunnel – Recycling]) uses are estimated to generate 2,700 gpd of wastewater per 1,000 square feet, and Commercial (restaurant) uses are estimated to generate 1,000 gpd of wastewater per 1,000 square feet.3 As such, the existing 3,296-square foot restaurant would generate approximately 3,296 gpd of wastewater. In comparison, the proposed 3,278-square foot carwash tunnel would generate approximately 8,851 gpd of wastewater, resulting in an increase in wastewater generation of approximately 5,555 gpd. However, as stated above, the project would utilize a reclaimed water system to treat and reclaim water used in the car wash on-site. The reclaimed water system would be capable of treating approximately 30 to 120 gallons per minute of reclaimed water and typically allows for the treatment and reuse of approximately 60 to 85 percent of water on-site.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to pay connection fees and ongoing user fees to LBWD to ensure the project’s impacts on existing LBWD wastewater facilities are adequately offset. As such, it is not anticipated that 2 Western Carwash Association, Water Conservation, https://www.wcwa.org/page/WaterConservation, accessed December 27, 2021. 3 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use , https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531, accessed December 2, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-3 Utilities and Service Systems
project implementation would require construction of new or the expansion of existing wastewater facilities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

STORMWATER
The proposed project would install a new drainage and stormwater collection system on-site to collect stormwater and runoff from the facility. An underground stormwater storage tank would be installed under the parking area. Multiple catch basins and drainage inlets would be installed on-site to collect runoff from the car wash activities. Further, the project proposes landscaped areas along the site perimeter that connect to an underground infiltration system.

Additionally, rather than allowing the majority of surface runoff on-site to flow into the City’s drainage system, a reclaimed water system would be installed to treat and reclaim water on-site. As such, the proposed improvements would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities include electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Electricity services to the project site are provided by Southern California Edison (SCE); natural gas services provided by Southern California Gas Company (SCGC); and telecommunications services provided by Spectrum Communication, Frontier Communications, and AT&T U-Verse.

Project operations would not increase dry utility demands substantially beyond existing conditions in a manner that would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded dry utilities facilities. Construction activities would involve undergrounding utilities that are currently aboveground, including an existing wooden utility pole located at the center of the project site, and installing any additional required utility lines underground. Payment of standard utility connection fees and ongoing user fees to SCE, SCGC, and the applicable telecommunications service provider would ensure project impacts to existing utility services are adequately offset. All new utility improvements would be required to comply with applicable local construction design requirements. As such, compliance with existing regulations would minimize impacts in this regard to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Response 4.19(a), LBWD would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under normal year, single dry-year, and multiple dry-year scenarios through 2040. The UWMP water supply projections are based on existing General Plan buildout assumptions and account for increased demand that would coincide with planned population growth. The proposed commercial use is permitted based on the site’s current PlaceType designation of Neighborhood Serving Center or Corridor Moderate Density (NSC-M). Additionally, as stated above, project-related construction and operational activities would not generate a substantial increase in water demand. The project also proposes to utilize a reclaimed water system on-site to treat and reclaim water utilized in the car wash tunnel. As such, LBWD would be able to accommodate the proposed project’s water demands in addition to existing and planned future demands. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.19(a).

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-4 Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts solid waste collection services with various private solid waste haulers. In 2019, approximately 318,891 tons of solid waste were disposed of at 19 permitted landfills serving the City. 4Among the 19 landfills serving the City, the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, El Sobrante Landfill, and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill admitted the majority of the City’s waste; refer to Table 4.19-1, Landfills Serving the City.

Table 4.19-1
Landfills Serving the City

Landfill/Location
Amount
Disposed by
City in 2019
(tons per day)
Maximum Daily
Throughput
(tons per day)
Remaining
Capacity
(cubic yards)
Anticipated
Closure Date
Antelope Valley Public Landfill 3,530 5,548 17,911,225 4/1/2044 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 7,069 12,000 60,408,000 1/1/2047 El Sobrante Landfill 46,175 16,054 143,977,170 1/1/2051 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill 125,998 11,500 205,000,000 12/31/2053 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 7,265 7,500 61,219,377 4/1/2045 Olinda Alpha Landfill 14,506 8,000 148,800,000 12/31/2036 Prima Deshecha Landfill 7,238 4,000 134,300,000 12/31/2102 Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center 4,468 64,750 82,954,873 3/31/2063 Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill 81,124 12,100 77,900,000 10/31/2037 Notes:

1. Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC, Kettleman Hills - B18 Nonhaz Codisposal, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, Lehigh Cement West, Inc., McKittrick Waste Treatment Site, Savage Canyon Landfill, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility, and Victorville Sanitary Landfill are excluded from Table 4.19-1 as these facilities accepted less than one percent of the City’s solid waste in 2019 (the last available reporting year). Additionally, Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill is also excluded as it has been inactive since December 2009.

Sources:

1. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search , https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/, accessed December 6, 2021.

2. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, Disposal during 2019 for Long Beach, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed December 6, 2021.

According to the project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas modeling, project operational activities are expected to generate approximately 9.09 tons of solid waste per year; refer to Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data. This represents less than one percent of the daily permitted throughput capacities identified in Table 4.19-1. As such, project operations would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

Project construction is not anticipated to generate significant quantities of solid waste with the potential to affect the capacity of regional landfills. All construction activities would be subject to conformance with relevant Federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939), which requires all California cities “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The project would also be required to comply with the 2019 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which includes design and construction measures that help reduce construction-related waste though material conservation and other 4 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, Disposal during 2019 for Long Beach, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed December 6, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-5 Utilities and Service Systems
construction-related efficiency measures. Compliance with these programs would ensure the project’s construction- related solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.19(d).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.19-6 Utilities and Service Systems
This page is intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.20-1 Wildfire

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site and entire City of Long Beach is not located within or near a State responsibility area or identified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.1,2 Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Los Angeles County, November 6, 2007, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf, accessed December 10, 2021. 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE, Los Angeles County, September 2011, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf, accessed December 10, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.20-2 Wildfire
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.20(a).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As detailed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, no impacts would occur to any special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the project area. However, short- term construction activities could impact nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would minimize potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. As such, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Further, as indicated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, project implementation is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to cultural or tribal cultural resources upon implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and TCR-1 through TCR-3. The on-site building is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). Additionally, if archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require construction activities to halt and a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the find and make appropriate recommendations. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a qualified Native American Monitor is present during site disturbance activities. If human remains and/or burial goods identified as tribal cultural resources are inadvertently found, Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would ensure activities in the vicinity of the find are halted, appropriate parties are notified, and appropriate evaluation and treatment of said resource(s) is conducted. If the human remains are determined to be Native American in origin, Mitigation Measure TCR-3 would ensure the Most Likely Descendant is notified and appropriate treatment of the remains is applied. As such, upon implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the project is not anticipated to eliminate important

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project involves developing an automated express car wash facility. The proposed use would not result in substantial population growth within the area, either directly or indirectly; refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable”, in consideration of the relatively nominal impacts of the project and mitigation measures provided.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.22-1 References

4.22 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, located at 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, California 90802.

1. California Air Resources Board, 2017 Scoping Plan, November 2017.

2. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data ,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed December 6, 2021.

3. California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed November 9, 2021.

4. California Department of Conservation, Los Angeles County Tsunami Hazard Areas, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/los-angeles, accessed December 20, 2021.

5. California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, accessed November 21, 2018.

6. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report, August 2000.

7. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County – South Half, 1994.

8. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 1, 2021.

9. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, California Natural Community Conservation Plans, April 2019.

10. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Los Angeles County, November 6, 2007, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6705/fhszs_map19.pdf, accessed December 10, 2021.

11. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE , Los Angeles County , September 2011, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/7280/losangelescounty.pdf, accessed December 10, 2021.

12. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Green Building Materials, https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed May 13, 2021.

13. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, Disposal during 2019 for Long Beach, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search, accessed December 6, 2021.

14. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, SWIS Facility/Site Search, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/, accessed December 6, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.22-2 References

15. California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed November 15, 2021.

16. California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, Final 2018 (Unmodified Basins), https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed November 10, 2021.

17. California Energy Commission, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, March 2018.

18. California Energy Commission, 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update , https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy- policy-report-update, accessed November 24, 2021.

19. California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2020-2030 Revised Forecast, February 2020.

20. California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed December 14, 2021.

21. California Energy Commission, Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, Volume I: Blue Skies, Clean Transportation, March 2021, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy- report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-report-update-0, accessed November 24, 2021.

22. California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed December 14, 2021.

23. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf, accessed November 24, 2021.

24. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed December 21, 2021.

25. California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Long Beach Quadrangle, March 25, 1999.

26. California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, accessed December 7, 2021.

27. City of Long Beach, Bicycle Master Plan, A Supplement to the Mobility Element, December 2016.

28. City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach General Plan, updated 2019.

29. City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. ORD-21-0038, enacted November 16, 2021.

30. City of Long Beach, Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department Website, http://www.longbeach.gov/park/, accessed November 10, 2021.

31. Eilar Associates, Inc., Noise Impact Analysis, Star Express Car Wash – Long Beach, December 2021.

32. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map #06037C1966G, Panel 1966 of 2350, April 21, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.22-3 References

33. Google Earth, 2022.

34. Long Beach Fire Department, Station Locations, https://www.longbeach.gov/fire/about-us/station-locations/, accessed December 10, 2021.

35. Long Beach Unified School District, School Finder, https://www.lbschools.net/Schools/finder.cfm, accessed December 10, 2021.

36. Long Beach Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, https://lbwater.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/LBWD-2015-UWMP-FINAL-Board-Adopted-3.pdf, accessed December 13, 2021.

37. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, Compton/Woodley Airport - Airport Influence Area, revised December 1, 2004, https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf, accessed November 15, 2021.

38. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01 Amending Order No. R4- 2014-0024, NPDES Permit No. CAS004003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach, September 8, 2016.

39. LSA Associates, Trip Generation Analysis for the Proposed Car Wash Project, December 20, 2021.

40. Michael Baker International, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Memorandum for the Star Express Car Wash Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California, January 31, 2022.

41. Pat West LLC, Economic and Qualitative Impacts Study Star Express Car Wash 1911 E. Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, CA.

42. Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 21,22,23, https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Route-20-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021.

43. Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 171, 175, https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/09/Route-171-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021.

44. Ride Long Beach Transit, Route 172, 173, 174, https://6jottui47i2iarq336nrse1e-wpengine.netdna- ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Route-170-AddInfo.pdf, accessed December 28, 2021.

45. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use, https://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=3531, accessed December 2, 2021.

46. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory, https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed November 24, 2021.

47. Southern California Edison, 2020 Sustainability Report, 2021.

48. Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Demographics & Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2016.

49. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal: 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020.

50. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal Technical Report: Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, September 3, 2020.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.22-4 References

51. Southern California Edison, 2020 Sustainability Report, 2021.

52. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Transmittal of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Proposed SB97 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency, April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed December 7, 2021.

53. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed January 13, 2021.

54. State Water Resources Control Board, Order WQ 2015-0157-UST in the Matter of Underground Storage Tank Case Closure, dated November 16, 2015.

55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Monoxide Emissions , https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed December 6, 2021.

56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed December 14, 2021.

57. U.S. Green Building Council, Green Building Costs and Savings, https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green- building-costs-and-savings, accessed December 14, 2021.

58. Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Groundwater Basins Master Plan, September 2016, https://www.wrd.org/sites/pr/files/GBMP_FinalReport_Text%20and%20Appendicies.pdf, accessed November 10, 2021.

59. Wayne Perry Inc., Request for Site Closure Report, Former Shell Service Station 1945 East Pacific Coast Highway (at Cherry Avenue) Long Beach, California, December 24, 2013.

60. Western Carwash Association, Water Conservation, https://www.wcwa.org/page/WaterConservation, accessed by December 27, 2021.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.23-1 Report Preparation Personnel

4.23 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
562.570.5934

Alexis Oropeza, Current Planning Officer
Amy L. Harbin, AICP, Planner
Alex Muldrow, Planner

PROJECT APPLICANT

SM WASH, LLC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 405
Los Angeles, CA 90010
949.468.6069 Francis Y. Park, Applicant’s Representative

CEQA CONSULTANT

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505

Alan Ashimine, Project Director
Frances Yau, AICP, Project Manager
Oscar Escobar, Environmental Analyst
Eleni Getachew, Environmental Analyst
Yiting Yuan, Air Quality/GHG/Noise Specialist
Zhe Chen, Air Quality/GHG/Noise Specialist
Eddie Torres, Noise Specialist
Carla Dietrich P.E., PTOE, Transportation Technical Manager Margo Nayyar, Cultural Resources Manager
Michelle Van Meter, Architectural Historian
Kholood Abdo, Archaeologist
Faye Stroud, Graphic Artist

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 4.23-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 5-1 Consultant Recommendation

5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City of Long Beach prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Star Express Car Wash Project. We find that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City of Long Beach’s determination (see Section 6.0, Lead Agency Determination).
6/1/2022
Date Frances Yau, AICP, Project Manager
Michael Baker International

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 5-2 Consultant Recommendation
This page intentionally left blank.

STAR EXPRESS CAR WASH PROJECT
Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2022 6-2 Lead Agency Determination
This page intentionally left blank.

1 EWM:ag A22-02924 (12/23/2022)
01473692.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE USE DISTRICT

MAP OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AS SAID MAP HAS

BEEN ESTABLISHED AND AMENDED BY AMENDING
PORTIONS OF PART 10 OF SAID MAP FROM REGIONAL

HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CHW) AND LOW-DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SMALL LOT (R-3-S) TO
COMMUNITY R-4-N COMMERCIAL (CCN)

The City Council of the City of Long Beach ordains as follows:

Section 1. Environmental documentation having been prepared, received, considered, approved, and certified as required by law, and the City Council hereby finding that the proposed change will not adversely affect the character, livability or appropriate development of the surrounding area and that the proposed change is consistent with the goals, objectives and provisions of the General Plan, the official Use District Map of the City of Long Beach, as established and amended, is further amended by amending portions of Part 10 of said Map from Regional Highway Commercial (CHW)and Low-density Multi-family Residential, small lot (R-3-S) to Community R-4-N Commercial.

Section 2. Those portions of Part 10 of said Map that are amended by this ordinance are depicted on Exhibit “A” which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this ordinance and the official Use District Map of the City.

Section 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance by

2 EWM:ag A22-02924 (12/23/2022)
01473692.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 the City Council and cause it to be posted in three conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach, and it shall take effect on the thirty-first day after it is approved by the Mayor.

I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of __________________, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Noes: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

Recusal(s): Councilmembers:

_________________________________ City Clerk Approved: ________________ _________________________________ Mayor

City of
Signal Hill
PD-22
E 19TH ST
Area to be modified from
R-3-S
(Low-density Multi-family
Residential, small lot)
to
CCN
(Community R-4-N CommercialW>s^
Area to be modified from
CHW
(Regional Highway Commercial)
to
CCN
(Community R-4-N Commercial)
R-3-S
CHW ^ PACIFIC COAST HWY
R-2-N
R-2-N
E 17TH^r
E 17TH STE 17TH ST
Y///\ Area to be modified from R-3-S to CCN Area to be modified from CHW to CCN N
A
AMENDMENT TO A PORTION OF PART 10
OF THE USE DISTRICT MAP Rezonlng Case
2103-41 (ZCHG20-009}
Exhibit A
A GENDA ITEM No. 1 Development Services
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-6194
November 3, 2022
CHA

IR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
City of Long Beach
California
RE
COMMENDATION:

T
o recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND 06-22); Approve a Zone Change (ZCHG20- 009) from Regional Highway Commercial (CHW) and Low -density Multi-Family Residential, small lot (R-3-S) to Community R-4-N Commercial (CCN); and
R
ecommend that the Planning Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP20-003) for a new 3,278-square-foot detached automated car wash along with two ancillary buildings, located at 1911 East Pacific Coast Highway in the CCN Zoning Districts. (District 6)
APPL
ICANT: SM Wash LLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 405
Los Angeles CA, 90010
(Application 2103-41)

DISCUSSION
B
ackground
T
he project site is an approximately 24,000- square-foot lot located at 1911 E ast Pacific Coast Highway. The corner lot has frontage along Pacific Coast Highway to the south and Gardenia Avenue to the west. A 12- foot-wide alley borders the property to the east (Attachment A – Vicinity Map). Surrounding uses include a gas station, tire shop, and residential uses. The current land use, general plan PlaceType, and zoning of the site and surrounding land uses are described in the table below.

Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses, Zoning, and General Plan Location Existing Land
Use
Existing
General Plan
PlaceType
Existing
Zoning
Project Site
Project site: Lot 10, northerly
50’ of project site
(APN: 7216-032-021)
Residential NSC-M; 5 stories R-3-S
Attachment A

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
November 3, 2022