PC - Item 3B - Exhibit H Mitigated Negative Declaration Garvey Garden PlazaMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA
Design Review 14-03
Lead Agency:
City of Rosemead
8838 E. Valley Boulevard
Rosemead, CA 91770
(626)-569-2142
Project Proponent:
Garvey Garden Plaza LLC
8728 Valley Boulevard, #206
Rosemead, California 91770
(626) 284-8888
Environmental Consultant:
Phil Martin & Associates
4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203
Irvine, California 92620
(714) 454-1800
April 15, 2015
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page i
TABLE of CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Location .............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1
1.4 Intended Use of This Document .......................................................................... 5
1.5 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................... 5
1.6 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................... 14
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................. 16
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .................................................. 19
3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................... 25
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 36
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 37
3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 38
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 41
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................. 43
3.9 Land Use........................................................................................................... 47
3.10 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 53
3.11 Noise ................................................................................................................. 54
3.12 Population and Housing .................................................................................... 64
3.13 Public Services ................................................................................................. 65
3.14 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 67
3.15 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................ 67
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................ 82
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................... 84
4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 86
Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix B – Geotechnical Report
Appendix C – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D – Hydrology Report
Appendix E – Noise Report
Appendix F – Traffic Report
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page ii
LIST of FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Location Map ................................................................................................... 2
2. Local Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................... 3
3. Aerial Photo .................................................................................................................... 4
4. Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 6
5. Building Elevations ......................................................................................................... 7
6. Building Elevations ......................................................................................................... 8
7. Landscape Plan .............................................................................................................. 9
8. On Site Photographs .................................................................................................... 10
9. Off-Site Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 11
10. Off-Site Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 12
11. Photo Orientation Map .................................................................................................. 13
12. Cumulative Projects – Aerial Photo ............................................................................... 15
13. North Building Simulations ............................................................................................ 21
14. West Building Simulations ............................................................................................ 22
15. Photometric Study ........................................................................................................ 24
16. Land Use Plan .............................................................................................................. 49
17. Zoning Map................................................................................................................... 50
18. Noise Measurement Locations ..................................................................................... 56
19. Construction Equipment Noise Levels .......................................................................... 63
20. Existing Study Area Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics ................................ 71
21. Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................ 72
22. Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes ....................... 73
23. Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes ....................... 74
24. Baseline 2017 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity
Ratios ........................................................................................................................... 79
LIST of TABLES
Table Page
1. South Coast Air Basin Emission Forecasts (Emissions (tons/day) ................................ 27
2. Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013) ............................................................... 28
3. Daily Emission Thresholds ............................................................................................ 29
4. Construction Activity Equipment Fleet ........................................................................... 30
5. Construction Activity Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) .................... 30
6. Daily Operational Impacts ............................................................................................. 31
7. Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage Per Equipment Type .............................................. 32
8. LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day) ..................................................................... 32
9. Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e)) ............................................................... 34
10. Operational Emissions .................................................................................................. 34
11. Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits ............................................................................... 55
12. Measured Noise Levels (dBA) ...................................................................................... 56
13. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline)........................... 57
14. Project Traffic Noise Level Increases (dBA CNEL at 50 feet from Centerline) .............. 57
15. Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities .................................................... 61
16. Project Trip Generation ................................................................................................. 69
17. 2014 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project ..................................................... 75
18. Baseline 2015 Intersection Levels of Service Without Project ....................................... 76
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page iii
19. Baseline 2017 With Project Level of Service Study Area Intersections ......................... 78
20. Estimate Project Water Consumption ........................................................................... 83
21. Estimated Project Wastewater Generation ................................................................... 83
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The City of Rosemead (“Lead Agency”) has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the purpose of identifying and evaluating the potential impacts that could occur with
proposed Design Review (DR) 14-03 for the construction of a mixed use project. The
project is located on approximately 1.13 acres and includes 46 residential units, 11,860
square feet of retail/office use, and 144 parking spaces, including compact and handicap
spaces, in a four-story building with one level of subterranean parking. The project
proposes that 20% of the apartments will be low-income that allows a thirty-five percent
(35%) density bonus.
It is the intent of this environmental document to identify the potential environmental impacts
that can be expected to occur with the development of the proposed project, including the
demolition of the existing buildings and site improvements, and provide feasible mitigation
measures, when required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to reduce
impacts to less than significant levels. Approval of the site plan is required by the City.
1.2 LOCATION
The project site totals approximately 49,484 square feet (1.13 acres) and is located in the
City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California as shown in Figure 1, Regional Map.
The project site consists of five parcels (APN 5283-005-028) and is located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue as shown in Figure 2 – Local
Vicinity Map. An aerial photograph of the site is shown in Figure 3 – Aerial Photo. The
project site is currently designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use:
Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) and the zoning is C-3D and RC-MUDO (Medium
Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed Use Design Overlays). The exiting land
use and zoning designations allow the uses proposed for the site.
The General Plan land use designations adjacent to the site include Mixed Use:
Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac) to the north, west, and east and Medium Density
Residential (12 du/ac) to the south. The zoning is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with
Residential/Commercial Mixed Use and Design Overlays) to the north, west, east, and
south.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is currently developed with seven buildings, including three commercial
buildings and four residential homes. The project will require the demolition of all of the
existing structures to allow the construction of a proposed four-story, mixed use
development consisting of 11,860 square feet of retail/office use on the first floor and 46
residential units on the second through fourth floors. Of the 46 apartments, the manager’s
apartment will be on the first floor, 14 apartments on the second floor, 15 apartments on the
third floor, and 16 units on the fourth floor. The project also includes a density bonus
application under Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow
density bonuses up to 35% for low income housing. As a result, 10 of the apartments will be
available for low-income households and allow the development of a total of 46 apartments.
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc., Google Maps 2013
Figure 1Regional Map
N
*
Site Location
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Figure 2Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps, 2014
N
Garvey Garden Plaza
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
N
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
Ae
r
i
a
l
P
h
o
t
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
2
0
1
4
Delta Avenue
Earle Avenue
Ga
r
v
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SI
T
E
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 5
New landscaping will be provided within the building setbacks around the project perimeter.
A 10’-wide landscape setback is proposed along the southern project boundary. A 6’
decorative block wall is proposed along the east boundary and most of the length of the
southern project boundary to separate the project from the existing adjacent residents. The
westerly 20’ of the southern project boundary will step down from the decorative six foot wall
to a 42” tall decorative wall. A 36” tall decorative block wall 28’ in length is proposed along
the west project boundary south of the southerly driveway at Delta Avenue and connect with
the 42” decorative wall at the southern project boundary. The project includes a total of 146
parking spaces with 48 spaces on the ground level for the retail/office space and 98 parking
spaces in the subterranean parking level.
As proposed, the building is 45’ in height. There are two points of site access. A two-way
driveway from Delta Avenue near the southern project boundary provides access to the
ground level parking. A two-way driveway provides access to the subterranean parking
approximately mid-site from Delta Avenue. Access to the subterranean parking area is
provided on-site from the ground level via a two-way ramp at the east side of the ground
level parking area. Delivery vehicles for the retail/office uses on the ground level will use the
surface parking on the ground level for truck deliveries. A 12’ wide public zone is proposal
along the north and west sides of the project and includes a five foot landscaped parkway
and a 7’ sidewalk. The project has a 25’ street right-of-way from the centerline on Delta
Avenue and a 50’ street right-of-way from the centerline on Garvey Avenue.
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Building elevations of the proposed building
are shown in Figures 5 and 6. A conceptual landscape plan showing the types of landscape
materials proposed for the site is shown in Figure 7.
1.4 INTENDED USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is intended to be used by the City of Rosemead as the Lead Agency to
evaluate the project’s environmental impacts and develop appropriate mitigation measures
to reduce impacts, if any, to less than a significant level, according to the regulations set
forth in the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines (Public Resources Code
§21000 – 21177, and California Code of Regulations §1500 – 15387).
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Rosemead is a suburb within the Greater Los Angeles area located 10 miles
east of the City of Los Angeles. It is bounded on the north by the City of Temple City, on the
west by the City of San Gabriel and the County of Los Angeles, on the south by the City of
Montebello, and the City of El Monte and South El Monte on the east. The City of
Rosemead is 5.5 square miles in size with a residential population of 53,764 people.
The project is located in an urbanized area that is developed with single-family detached
homes to the south, commercial uses to the west, east, and north. Photographs of the
project site and the surrounding land uses are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10, respectively.
Figure 11 is a photo orientation aerial showing the locations of the photos in Figures 8, 9
and 10. The land uses surrounding the site include:
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
r
o
D
e
s
i
g
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
N
GARVEY AVENUE
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
No
r
t
h
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
i
m
o
n
L
e
e
&
A
s
s
o
c
.
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
So
u
t
h
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
S
i
m
o
n
L
e
e
&
A
s
s
o
c
.
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
B
e
n
L
u
n
d
g
r
e
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
N
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
h
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
8
On
-
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
1.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
f
r
o
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
l
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
3.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
a
t
G
a
r
v
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
D
e
l
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
2.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
a
r
e
a
o
f
s
i
t
e
4.
U
s
e
d
C
a
r
L
o
t
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
h
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
5.
C
a
r
w
a
s
h
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
s
i
t
e
7.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
w
e
s
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
6.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
s
i
t
e
8.
N
u
r
s
e
r
y
w
e
s
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
P
h
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
0
Of
f
-
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
g
r
a
p
h
s
9.
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
o
m
e
s
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
s
i
t
e
11
.
U
s
e
d
c
a
r
l
o
t
a
n
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
e
a
s
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
10
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
e
a
s
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
f
r
o
n
t
i
n
g
G
a
r
v
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
12
.
Us
e
d
c
a
r
l
o
t
e
a
s
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
i
n
e
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
N
So
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
2
0
1
4
Delta Avenue
Earle Avenue
Ga
r
v
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SI
T
E
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
1
Ph
o
t
o
O
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
p
1 2 9
7
3
4
6
5
10
12
11
8
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 14
North
General Plan – Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac)
Zoning – C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay)
Land Use – Commercial
South
General Plan – Medium Density Residential (0-12 du/ac)
Zoning – R-2 Light Multiple Residential
Land Use – Single-family detached
East
General Plan - Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) and R-2 Light Multiple
Residential
Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay)
Land Use - Commercial and Residential
West
General Plan - - Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (31-45 du/ac) and Public Facilities
Zoning - C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay)
Land Use – Commercial and City of Monterey Park Water Department Pump House
1.6 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
The City of Rosemead identified four projects that, along with the proposed project, could
have cumulative impacts. The four projects include:
A. Garvey Market Place – The project proposes to develop a 3.43 acre site at 7419-
7459 Garvey Avenue as a shopping center with three buildings totaling 46,000
square feet. The site is currently developed with a travel agency office that will be
demolished.
B. Garvey 168 Plaza - The project proposes to develop a 0.698 acre (30,397 square
feet) site at 8479 Garvey Avenue with two buildings totaling 36,100 square feet with
24,725 square feet of residential condominiums and 11,375 square feet of
commercial use.
C. Garvey Del Mar Plaza – The project proposes to develop a 1.14 acre site at the
northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue with 60 residential units,
including 12 low income units, and 15,553 square feet of retail space.
D. 9048 Garvey Avenue – develop a 2.1 acre site with 48 residential units and 6,500
square feet of retail space.
An aerial photograph showing the location of the four cumulative projects is provided in
Figure 12. There are no additional cumulative projects that along with the proposed project
could have potential cumulative impacts.
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
N
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
2
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
A
e
r
i
a
l
P
h
o
t
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
2
0
1
5
Ga
r
v
e
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
San Gabriel Blvd
Walnut Grove Avenue
Ga
r
v
e
y
Ga
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 16
2.0 Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors That Could Result in a Potentially Significant Impact
The environmental factors listed below are not checked because the proposed project would not
result in a “potentially significant impact” as indicated by the preceding checklist and supported by
substantial evidence provided in this document.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact
Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signed Date
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 17
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) CEQA requires a brief explanation for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, and
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant
Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially
Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe
the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 18
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 19
3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:
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 building within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
3.1 AESTHETICS
a) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding properties are not designated a scenic
vista by the City of Rosemead General Plan. The most predominant scenic vista open to
the Rosemead community is the San Gabriel Valley mountain range approximately 8 miles
north of Rosemead. No existing residents adjacent to and north, west, or east of the site will
have to look across the site to view the San Gabriel Mountains. The residents adjacent to
and south of the site will have their direct northern views of the San Gabriel mountain range
blocked by the project. However, the residents further south of the project will have less of
their distant mountain views impacted. The project will not have any significant scenic vista
impacts because there are no City adopted scenic vistas that are visible from the area
adjacent to or surrounding the site that would be significantly impacted by the project.
b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to or near a state-designated, or
eligible scenic highway.1 The project will not impact any existing scenic resources, historic
buildings, etc., within a state scenic highway.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with three commercial
buildings and five one-story single-family residences. The commercial buildings front
Garvey Avenue on the north, four of the residential units front Delta Avenue on the west and
the fifth residence is located along the east project boundary in the southeast area of the
site. All of the buildings and site improvements will be demolished to allow the project to be
developed.
The building setbacks along the west and southern boundaries will be landscaped. The
landscaping proposed along the west project boundary will provide some aesthetic buffering
to motorists and pedestrians on Delta Avenue. Landscaping is proposed along the entire
length of the southern project boundary along with a 6’ decorative block wall. The 6’
1 State of California Officially Designated State Scenic Highways,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenichighways/
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 20
decorative block wall will buffer the project from the residents south of the site. The
landscaping proposed within the five foot parkway along Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue
will improve the aesthetics of the project site for motorists and pedestrians on these two
roadways compared to the existing condition that has no landscaping along either street
adjacent to the site.
A visual simulation is provided to show the proposed development from Garvey Avenue and
Delta Avenue. Figures 13 and 14 show visual simulations of the site as seen from Garvey
Avenue and Delta Avenue, respectively. As shown, the three levels of apartments will be
constructed on top of the ground floor of retail use. The ground level retail stores will allow
direct pedestrian access.
There are approximately 25 existing trees on the property. The project proposes to remove
all of the existing trees and plant twenty-five replacement trees throughout the site. The 25
replacement trees will include four trees in the public parkway along Garvey Avenue and
seven trees in the public parkway along Delta Avenue. The remaining 13 trees will be
planted along the southern project boundary, the southeast corner of the site and the
northeast corner of the easterly extension of the site. None of the trees that will be removed
from the site are oak trees.
In addition to planting 25 trees, the project proposes to plant vines, shrubs and other
landscape materials within the landscaped setback areas along the east, south, and west
project boundary. The project perimeter landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the
project for pedestrians and motorists on Delta Avenue compared to the existing condition
that has minimal perimeter landscaping.
The project will improve the existing aesthetics of the site with the construction of a new
building and landscaping. The proposed building will be more visible to area residents and
businesses compared to the existing development on the site due to the height of the
building and density. As stated previously, the proposed building is four stories in height
compared to the existing one- and two-story buildings on the site. Because of its height, the
project will also be more visible to residents further from the site compared to the existing
buildings. While the project will be more visible compared than the existing development,
the project is not anticipated to significantly degrade the existing visual characteristics of
either the site or the surrounding due to the variations of building relief and heights.
Although the proposed building is 45 feet in height compared to other buildings in the area
that are 30 feet in height or less, the existing zoning allows structures up to 70 feet tall. The
project proposes a building that is 25’ shorter than allowed by the City’s zoning.
The project will change and reduce the privacy of the residents south and southeast of the
project due to the height of the proposed building. The proposed building will allow project
residents to have greater views of the areas surrounding the site compared to the existing
condition. Views by the project residents to the south and southeast could reduce the
existing privacy of the residents that are closest to the site. Similarly, existing residents
south and southeast of the site will have direct views of the residential units and residents of
the apartment building.
Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.74.505.A.1, the project is required to provide a minimum
twelve foot setback from the adjacent curb face to the building. Within this twelve foot
setback is a required five foot wide amenity zone. The amenity zone shall include street
trees, landscaping, public art, street lighting, street furniture and other pedestrian-oriented
amenities. Required street trees have a maximum distance of 30 feet or less, on center.
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
3
No
r
t
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
i
c
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
4
We
s
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
A
r
t
i
s
t
i
c
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 23
Street trees are proposed along both sides of the project adjacent to streets including four
streets trees along Garvey Avenue and eight trees along Delta Avenue for a total of twelve
street trees. The City will require that street trees are provided to comply with RMC
17.74.50.A.1.
Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.74.050.A.4.a, the corner of the proposed building at
Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue must provide special treatments to enhance the
pedestrian experience, and create visual interest and focal points at the entryways, such as,
but not limited to, building cut-offs and corner entrances with additional architectural detail,
decorative landscaping, hardscape, planters, canopy, overhang or other architectural
covering over the building entry. In addition, the building shall have a five-foot angled corner
setback measured from both intersecting property lines. As shown previously in Figure 4,
the project proposes a 250 square foot circular plaza at the northwest corner of the building
at the intersection of Garvey and Delta Avenues to meet the required building cut-offs and
angled corner setbacks. During site plan review, the City will ensure the building provides
the proper angled corners and cut-offs in compliance with RMC 17.74.050.A.4.a.
The existing structures on the site are older buildings including both residential and
commercial uses. The existing buildings are not consistent in their design and architecture.
The buildings show signs of delayed maintenance and repair compared to other buildings in
the area. Compared to the existing development on the property, the project would improve
the aesthetics of the site with a new building that is current with other new development in
Rosemead in terms of design and architecture. The replacement of the existing older
buildings on the site with a new four-story building with residential units and commercial
uses and proposed site improvements, including landscaping, will significantly improve the
existing aesthetics of the site. Project compliance with all applicable development standards
in RMC 17.74.050 will reduce project aesthetic impacts for adjacent residents, businesses,
pedestrians, and motorists on Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue to less-than-significant.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate new sources of light
and glare compared to the existing conditions due to the increase in the amount of
development proposed for the site. Due to the increase in development proposed for the
site compared to the existing development, the project will increase light and glare.
Light
In compliance with RMC 17.74.050.A.12, a photometric study was prepared. The
photometric study was based on the proposed types and electronic technologies of the
outdoor lighting fixtures, including light pole heights, to illuminate the site. The results of the
photometric study are shown in Figure 15.
The photometric analysis shows that the project will have maximum light of 2.2 foot candles
at the east project boundary and 4.4 foot candles along the southern project boundary. The
lighting industry recognizes a maintenance horizontal luminance of 0.2 foot-candles. For
comparison purposes, a medium to bright moon light is approximately 0.3 foot candles.
Based on the photometric study the project lighting plan, as currently proposed, will
generate light hotspots on the site that will extend off-site with accompanying glare resulting
in a combination of floodlight effects that could impact project residents and adjacent
residents. The following measure is recommended to reduce on- and off-site lighting impact
to 0.1 foot candles and less-than-significant.
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
5
Ph
o
t
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
E
G
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 25
Mitigation Measure No. 1 Prior to the issuance of a
building permit the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan
for approval by the Planning Division that incorporates any of
the following light reducing measures as applicable:
Improved physical barriers such as increased wall height.
Select lighting fixtures with more-precise optical control
and/or different lighting distribution.
Relocate and/or change the height and/or orientation of
proposed lighting fixtures.
Add external shielding and/or internal reflectors to fixtures.
• Select lower-output lamp/lamp technologies
• A combination of the above.
Glare from the windows and metal surfaces of the proposed building could impact adjacent
land uses that are glare-sensitive, especially residences east and southeast of the site. A
proposed 6 foot block wall along the east and south project boundary will block and
eliminate ground level glare impacts to the residents adjacent to and east and south of the
project. Glare from apartment windows and any metal building materials of the apartments
could extend to area residents.
For the most part, the windows on all building floors that could generate glare are recessed
into the building. Because the windows are recessed and somewhat set-back in the
building, glare from the windows will be minimal. Overall, glare by the project to area
residents, pedestrians, and motorists will be less-than-significant.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.2 Agricultural 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.
Would the project:
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) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 26
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with commercial and residential
uses. There are no agricultural uses on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site.
The California State Department of Conservation was contacted to determine the California
State Important Farmlands Map designation for the site. The Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) considers the City of Rosemead an urban area. Therefore,
none of the soils have been mapped and the NRCS has no plans to map the soil in the
future. The project site has no farmland designation. Because there are no agricultural
uses on or in close proximity to the site, the project will not impact existing farmland.
b) No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the project applicant is
not requesting a zone change to allow agriculture use on the property. The project site and
the surrounding properties are developed, located in an urbanized area, and not used for
agriculture. Therefore, none of the properties are in a Williamson Act contract. The project
will not have a conflict or impact any agricultural use or land that is in a Williamson Act
contract.
c) No Impact. None of the proposed project activities could result in or encourage the
conversion of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses since there are no agricultural uses
either on or adjacent to the site.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) 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 (including releasing
emissions, which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
3.3 AIR QUALITY
An air quality and greenhouse assessment was prepared by Giroux & Associates. A copy of
the air quality and greenhouse gas assessment is included as Appendix B.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 27
a) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is
bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and
east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. Air quality in the South Coast Air Basin
is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds
with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past
decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors
(ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter are shown in Table 1.
Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue
throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are
implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.
Table 1
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts
(Emissions Tons/Day)
Pollutant 2010a 2015b 2020b 2025b
NOx 603 451 357 289
VOC 544 429 400 393
PM-10 160 155 161 165
PM-2.5 71 67 67 68
a2010 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.
Source: California Air Resources Board, California Emissions Projection Analysis Model, 2009
The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in
August 2003. The 2003 AQMP was approved by EPA in 2004. The Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal
health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006.
The 2007 AQMP was adopted on June 1, 2007, after extensive public review. The 2007
AQMP recognizes the interaction between photochemical processes that create both ozone
and the smallest airborne particulates (PM-2.5). The 2007 AQMP is therefore a coordinated
plan for both pollutants.
Development, such as the proposed mixed-use project, do not directly relate to the AQMP in
that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing “general”
development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population,
housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which the impact significance
of planned growth is determined. If a given project incorporates any available transportation
control measures that can be implemented on a project-specific basis, and if the scope and
phasing of a project are consistent with adopted forecasts as shown in the Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), then the regional air quality impact of project growth would not
be significant because of planning inconsistency. The SCAQMD, however, while
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 28
acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor
designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed
development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance
for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.
The project will not significantly affect regional air quality plans because the project will not
generate new or additional vehicle trips that could generate significant increased quantities
of emissions and impact the AQMP. The project will not generate any emissions that will
exceed AQMD adopted thresholds. The project will not impact the AQMP.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The air emissions that will be generated by the
project are associated with the demolition of the existing on-site improvements, project
construction and the operation of the project upon completion of construction.
Because the project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, the SCAQMD sets and
enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. Long-term air quality
monitoring is carried out by SCAQMD at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby
stations that monitor the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and
nitrogen oxides are monitored at the Pico Rivera air monitoring facility, while 10-micron
diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is measured at the Azusa air monitoring station. Table
2 shows the last five years of monitoring data from a composite of the data resources.
Table 2
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013)
Pollutant/Standard 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 8 1 1 5 2
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 6 1 1 6 3
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 3 1 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.101
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx xx
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.089 0.08
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 6/61
24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 0/61
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 72 68 63 78 76
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 0/114
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 29.1
xx - data not available, S=State Standard, F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM-2.5
Azusa Monitoring Station for PM-10
data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 29
Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD
has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality
impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily
emissions that exceed any of the emission thresholds shown in Table 3 are recommended
by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA.
Table 3
Daily Emission Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.
Construction Emissions
Dust is typically the primary pollutant of concern that is generated during grading activities.
Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled
source, they are called "fugitive emissions.” Emission rates vary as a function of many
parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of
disturbance or excavation, etc.).
Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance average about 10
pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control measures
(RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures (BACMs) for
fugitive dust from construction activities. With the use of BACMs, fugitive dust emissions
can be reduced to 1-2 pounds per day per disturbed acre.
Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects
derive from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive
pollutants such as sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for
particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in
1997. A limited amount of construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range.
PM-2.5 emissions are estimated to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10.
In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely,
construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence
times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically
non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These
fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on
parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than causing any adverse health
hazard.
The CalEEMod was developed by SCAQMD to provide a model to calculate construction
emissions and operational emissions for a residential or commercial project. CalEEMod
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 30
calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as
well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2
computer model was used to calculate emissions from the default construction equipment
fleet and schedule anticipated by CalEEMod as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Demolition (20 days)
1 Concrete Saw
3 Loader/Backhoes
1 Dozer
Site Prep (3 days)
1 Grader
1 Scraper
1 Loader/Backhoe
Grading (6 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
2 Loader/Backhoes
Construction (220 days)
1 Crane
3 Forklifts
1 Generator Set
1 Welder
3 Loader/Backhoes
Paving (10 days)
1 Concrete Mixer
1 Paving Equipment
1 Paver
2 Rollers
1 Loader/Backhoe
Utilizing the equipment fleet in Table 4, the following estimated worst case daily construction
emissions are listed in Table 5.
Table 5
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2015
Unmitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 8.4 5.0
Mitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 4.4 3.0
2016
Unmitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
Mitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 31
As shown in Table 5, the peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be
below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds without the need for mitigation. The only model-based
mitigation measure applied to the project was to water all exposed dirt at least three times
per day during construction as required per SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize
the generation of fugitive dust.
The incorporation of the following measure will reduce project construction emission impacts
to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction, the contractor shall apply water three
times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or
staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, and active construction
areas.
Operational Emissions
The operational emissions for the proposed uses were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2.2
for a project build-out year of 2017. The operational emissions for the project are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6
Daily Operational Impacts
Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2
Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9
Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4,823.1
Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1
SCAQMD
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 -
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No NA
Source: CalEEMod Output in Appendix
Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use
In addition to motor vehicles, general development causes smaller amounts of “area source”
air pollution to be generated from on-site energy consumption (primarily landscaping) and
from off-site electrical generation (lighting). These sources represent a minimal percentage
of the total project NOx and CO burdens, and a few percent other pollutants. The inclusion
of these emissions adds negligibly to the total significant project-related emissions.
As shown in Table 6, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD CEQA significance
thresholds. As a result, the project operational emission impacts will be less-than-
significant.
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local
level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These
analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 32
developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative
1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally
approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
For the project, the primary source of possible LST impact would occur during demolition
and construction activities. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants:
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-
2.5). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that are not expected to cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each
source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant
screening level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre disturbance
sites for varying distances. CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the
number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for
each piece of equipment used at the site. Table 7 shows the maximum daily disturbed-
acreage for comparison to LSTs.
Table 7
Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type
Equipment Type Acres/8-hr-day
Crawler Tractor 0.5
Graders 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5
Scrapers 1
Based on the equipment listed in Table 7 for the project and the CalEEMod default, the
equipment fleet will disturb 1.5 acres daily during peak construction grading activity as
shown below:
(1 dozer x 0.5 + 1 grader x 1 = 1.5 acres disturbed).
The applicable thresholds and project construction emissions are shown in Table 8. The
LST emissions thresholds were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As
shown in Table 8, all on-site project emissions are below the LST for demolition and
construction. The project will have less-than-significant LST emissions.
Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1 acre/ 25 meters
S. San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
Max On-Site Emissions * 852 102 6 5
Demolition
Unmitigated 22 30 2 2
Mitigated 22 30 2 2
Site Prep
Unmitigated 19 32 3 2
Mitigated 19 32 2 2
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 33
LST 1 acre/ 25 meters
S. San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
Grading
Unmitigated 21 31 8 5
Mitigated 20 31 4 3
Construction
Unmitigated 17 26 2 2
Mitigated 17 26 2 2
Paving
Unmitigated 12 20 1 1
Mitigated 12 20 1 1
CalEEMod Output in Appendix
*excludes construction commuting, vendor deliveries and possible emissions associated with haul trucking.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the
earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred
to as “global warming.” Greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of
the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near
opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared
spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of
the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel
consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile
sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for
approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the
second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
Statewide, the framework to develop implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency,
from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines
for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws
as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA
Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A
project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment, or
Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG
emissions.
Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be
evaluated. The process is divided into quantification of project-related GHG emissions,
making a determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 34
impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG
guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.
CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers
most appropriate”. The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG
emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod.
The selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration the level of GHG
emissions that would be cumulatively considerable. In September 2010, the SCAQMD
Working Group recommended a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2(e) for mixed use projects. This
3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis.
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The build-out timetable for this project is estimated by CalEEMod to be two years. During
project construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction
activities will generate the annual CO2(e) emissions shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e))
CO2(e)
Year 2015 388.8
Year 2016 7.2
Overall Total 396.0
Amortized 13.2
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
The SCAQMD GHG emissions policy for construction activities is to amortize construction
emissions over a 30-year lifetime. As shown, the estimated GHG emissions from project
construction activities are 13.2 MTCO2(e) per year, which is less than the threshold of 3,000
MTCO2(e). Therefore, the project GHG impacts are less-than-significant.
Operational GHG Emissions
The operational and annualized construction emissions were calculated and shown in Table
10. The annual GHG emissions are calculated to be 932.7 metric tons CO2(e)/year, which is
less than the significance threshold of 3,000 MT. The operational GHG emissions are less-
than-significant.
Table 10
Operational Emissions
Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year
Area Sources* 10.8
Energy Utilization 140.7
Mobile Source 721.5
Solid Waste Generation 15.0
Water Consumption 31.5
Annualized Construction 13.2
Total 932.7
Significance Threshold 3,000
Assumes natural gas hearths for residential use
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 35
Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies
The City of Rosemead has not developed or adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for
the purpose to reduce GHGs. Therefore, the applicable GHG planning document for the
project is AB-32. As shown above, the project will not have a significant increase in
construction or operational GHG emissions. As a result, the project will generate GHG
emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton/year threshold. Thus, the project
would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.3 “b)” above, the air emissions
generated by the project during demolition, construction and the life of the project will not
exceed any State air emission thresholds. SCAQMD neither recommends quantified
analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate
methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or
operational impacts. Rather, SCAQMD recommends a project’s contribution to cumulative
impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for the project’s
specific impacts. Since none of the project’s daily construction or operational air emissions
will exceed the thresholds recommended by SCAQMD, the project will not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons
with the greatest sensitivity to air pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive
receptors”. Sensitive population groups include young children, the elderly and the acutely
and chronically ill (especially those with cardio-respiratory disease).
Residential areas are considered to be sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may
be occupied for extended periods, and residents may be outdoors when exposure is
highest. Existing off-site residences abutting the site are considered pollution-sensitive to
any project related emissions. The residences east and south of the project are considered
sensitive receptors to air emissions. Although air emissions will be generated during project
construction, as presented in the air quality assessment, the project emissions will not
exceed adopted air emission thresholds. The project will not exceed air emission thresholds
as discussed in section 3.3 “b)” above, and as a result, will not expose sensitive receptors to
any substantial pollutant concentrations.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction the residents adjacent to the
construction activity may detect some odors from the operation of the on-site motorized
construction equipment. There will be less than nine pieces of construction equipment
operating on the site at any time. The potential for all nine pieces of equipment to operate
simultaneously is considered to be low. Therefore, the odors that will be generated by the
operation of the construction equipment are not anticipated to significantly impact area
residents. Once construction is completed all odors from the operation of construction
equipment will cease. The California Building Code (CBC) will require the installation of
mechanical equipment to reduce odors of any restaurants that operate within the building.
The installation of all CBC required mechanical equipment for all restaurants will reduce
odors as required by the CBC. The project is not anticipated to have any odors that would
significantly impact area residents or pedestrians in the area. Odors by the project will be
less-than-significant.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 36
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(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 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?
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The site is disturbed and developed with commercial buildings, single-family
residences, pavement and other site improvements. There are less than 20 introduced,
non-native trees on the property. There is no native habitat on the site to support native
wildlife. The existing introduced urban landscape materials are not classified or considered
to be rare or endangered plant species. In addition, there are no wetlands on or adjacent to
the site. Any wildlife that may exist on the site would be non-native wildlife associated with
urban development, such as domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons,
mockingbirds, etc. There are no plants or wildlife on the site that are designated or will
qualify as a sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The project will not impact any biological resources, including plants or animals.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 37
b) No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are developed with residential,
commercial, and public facility uses. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communities either on the site or on any of the surrounding properties. The project will not
impact riparian or sensitive habitat.
c) No Impact. There are no wetlands either on or adjacent to the site. The project will not
impact wetlands.
d) No Impact. The project is developed with three commercial buildings, five single-family
residences, pavement and other site improvements. The surrounding properties are
developed with residential, commercial and public facility land uses. There is no native
vegetation or bodies of water on or surrounding the site. Therefore, neither the project site
nor adjacent properties support the movement of migratory fish or wildlife or support a
nursery for wildlife. The project will not impact or interfere with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites since there is no habitat on or adjacent to the site
that supports wildlife.
e) No Impact. Approximately fifteen non-native trees will be removed during project
demolition. In their place, 12 new street trees will be planted along Garvey and Delta
Avenues. In addition, trees will be planted along the west project boundary at the southwest
corner of the site, along the length of the southern project boundary and the sitting area at
the southeast corner of the site. There are no oak trees on the site. Therefore, no oak trees
will require protection or replacement in compliance with the Rosemead Oak Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The project will not have any oak tree impacts.
f) No Impact. The City of Rosemead is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. The project will not impact any habitat or natural community
conservation plan.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 38
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. None of the existing buildings on the site are classified as, or a candidate as
a historical resource by either the City of Rosemead or the State because they do not meet
the criteria for a historical resource. The demolition of the existing buildings and other site
improvements would not have any historical resource impacts.
b) No Impact. There are no known archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site that
could be impacted by the project. If archaeological resources are discovered during
grading, construction, or utility trenching, all construction activity shall cease and the
resources evaluated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which addresses
impacts to unique archaeological resources.
c) No Impact. Based on the Rosemead General Plan, there are no known paleontological
resources in Rosemead. If paleontological resources are discovered during grading or
construction, all grading and construction activity shall cease and the resources evaluated
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The project would not have any
paleontological resource impacts.
d) No Impact. Neither the site nor the surrounding area is known to have been used as a
cemetery. Thus, there are no known human remains on the site that will be disturbed by the
project. The project will not impact human remains.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.6 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) 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.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) 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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 39
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared by Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation.2 A copy of the geotechnical investigation is included in Appendix B.
a i) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rosemead is in a seismically active region.
All known or suspected strike-slip faults in this area trend northwesterly. The primary local
fault, designated the Alhambra Wash and/or the East Montebello fault, is southeast of the
site and includes an inferred northwesterly extension that passes within 2,000 feet east of
the project site. Southeast of the project, this fault is designated an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone and lies approximately 2,800 feet southeast of the site (Figure 5-4 of
Rosemead General Plan). The entire City of Rosemead is underlain by the Santa Fe
Springs segment of the Puente Hills blind thrust fault.3
A northwesterly trending zone encompasses a series of Fault Hazard Management Zones
(FHMZ) near the southeastern boundary of Rosemead. The FHMZ are 200-foot wide zones
and considered potentially active and require special investigations only for "important"
facilities as defined in the City of Rosemead General Plan. The FHMZ are so designated
due to lack of sufficient, significant evidence to indicate activity on these potential fault
traces. The project is located within the eastern edge of the longest designated FHMZ.
There is a low potential for surface faults to cross the site directly or very near the site as the
faults within the FHMZ are considered potentially active, though no direct evidence of
surface rupture or other features indicating the fault is active has been observed.
The hazard to the project site of undergoing ground rupture from displacement on a surface
fault is low to moderate even though the subject site could be underlain by a surface trace of
a potentially active fault.4
a ii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The site lies adjacent to or overlies the
Alhambra Wash and/or the East Montebello fault and the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone. New data indicate the earthquakes on these faults range in possible magnitudes from
6.4 to 7.1.
The amount of seismic shaking in g's occurring to the site from earthquakes on these faults
is primarily dependent on the distance of the origination of the earthquake from the site.
Figure 5-2 of the Rosemead General Plan indicates that the plane of the Puente Hills Blind
Thrust lies at a depth of approximately 13 kilometers (km) below the ground surface. A
7.1M earthquake on the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault would create the highest ground
2 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, 3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, page 4. 4 Ibid, page 5.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 40
acceleration of all of the other faults in the area with an expected peak acceleration value at
the site from such an earthquake approximately 0.79g and should be used in all site design
criteria.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall be
designed for a peak acceleration value of 0.79g as
recommended in the geotechnical engineering investigation
and approved by the City Engineer.
a iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within a liquefaction zone based on
the State Seismic Hazard Zone map (El Monte).5 The historically high groundwater under
the subject site is 8 feet below ground surface. Calculations for liquefaction potential were
performed for the soil layers below the depth of 8 feet, the historically highest groundwater
table at the site. The results of the calculations indicate that the onsite soils are “Non-
liquefiable”.6 Thus, the site will not be significantly impacted by liquefaction.
a iv) No Impact. The site is generally flat. The development surrounding the site is also
generally flat. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact any adjacent
properties due to an on-site landslide.
b) No Impact. The City will require the project developer to install and provide all
appropriate erosion control measures prior to the start of any on-site demolition or
construction and maintain the erosion control measures throughout project construction.
The incorporation of all applicable standard erosion control measures such as the use of
sand bags around the project perimeter and other measures deemed appropriate by the City
will reduce and minimize soil erosion. The project will not have any significant soil erosion
impacts.
c) No Impact. The site is developed with commercial buildings and single-family detached
residences. None of the existing development shows any evidence of unstable soil
conditions. The project proposes to construct a four story building with underground parking
and other site improvements. Based on the geotechnical report, the grading and
construction activities required to develop the project as proposed are not anticipated to
cause any unstable soil conditions either on or off the site based on the geotechnical report.
The project will not have any significant unstable soil impacts.
d) No Impact. The Rosemead General Plan does not identify any expansive soils on the
site or the project area. The subsurface soils at the basement garage floor level consist
generally of fine to coarse, silty sand. The sandy materials will have no expansion potential.7
The project will not be impacted by expansive soils.
e) No Impact. The site is currently served by the public sewer system. The City will require
the project to connect to and continue to be served by the public sewer system. The project
will not impact any soils resulting from alternative disposal systems.
5 Ibid, page 6. 6 Ibid. 7 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Pacific Geotech, Inc. September 27, 2013, page 8.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 41
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
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 likely 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 within one-quarter mile of a
facility that might reasonably be anticipated
to emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances or waste?
e) Be located on a site of a current or former
hazardous waste disposal site or solid
waste disposal site unless wastes have
been removed from the former disposal
site; or 2) that could release a hazardous
substance as identified by the State
Department of Health Services in a current
list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for
removal or remedial action pursuant to
Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and
Safety Code?
f) Be located on land that is, or can be made,
sufficiently free of hazardous materials so
as to be suitable for development and use
as a school?
g) 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 for people
residing or working in the project area?
h) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 42
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A Phase I8 Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) was prepared for the site by Robin
Environmental Management (REM). The report is included in Appendix D.
a) No Impact. Based on the Phase I ESA that was conducted for the site in April 2012, the
existing uses on the site do not use or generate any significant quantities of hazardous
materials and significantly impact the public or the environment.9 Similarly, the project does
not propose to use or generate any hazardous materials that would significantly impact the
public or the environment. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
b) No Impact. As stated in 3.7 “a)” above, the proposed project will not create a significant
hazard from a release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) No Impact. Sanchez Elementary and Roger Temple Intermediate schools are
approximately a quarter mile southeast of the project. Willard Elementary School is
approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the site and the Rosemead Education Center is
approximately a quarter mile to the east. The project does not propose any use that would
emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances and impact any
schools, including Sanchez Elementary, Roger Temple Intermediate, Willard Elementary, or
Rosemead Education Center.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The site was occupied in the past with a variety of uses
including various types of markets, liquor stores, and restaurants.10 The site is currently
occupied with a two story building that is occupied with office use on the ground floor and
apartments on the second floor, a single-story commercial building, paved parking lots, and
residential units. None of the existing uses on the site either use or generate any hazardous
materials.
The government records that were searched as part of the Phase I ESA that was prepared
for the site identified three Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Spill sites that are
located within 1/8 mile of the site and targeted as a potential environmental concern. The
three sites include:
Laidlaw Harley Davidson, 8399 Garvey Avenue – listed as a “Case Closed” status.
Laidlaw Harley Davidson, 8351 Garvey Avenue – listed as an “Open” status.
Corsair LLC, 8350 Garvey Avenue – listed as a “Case Closed (No Further Action
Required)” status.
Based on the Phase I ESA, all three of the identified sites are located down gradient of the
project site in terms of groundwater flow. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the three
identified environmental concerns could significantly impact the subsurface environment of
the project site.11 As a result, the potential for the project to be significantly impacted by
hazardous materials from any of the three sites is less-than-significant.
8 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 8404-8416 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead California, Robin Environmental
Management, April 24, 2012.
9 Ibid, page 27. 10 Ibid, page 8 11 Ibid, pages 28-29.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 43
e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. As discussed in 3.7 “d” above, the project site is
not located on a former or current hazardous waste site. Based on the Phase I ESA, the
property does not contain any hazardous materials and has not been used as a hazardous
waste site in the past. Furthermore, there are no liens listed in the United Sates
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)’s Federal Superfund Liens List, and no known
recorded land-use environmental deed restrictions pertaining to the subject site listed in the
California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) liens database.
Due to the age of some of the buildings, there is the potential for asbestos and lead based
paint to exist. The following measure is recommended to mitigate the potential for the
presence of asbestos and/or lead based paint to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 4 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure,
the project developer shall provide a building survey to
determine if asbestos or lead paint are present. The asbestos
and lead paint survey shall be conducted by a Cal-OSHA
Certified Asbestos consultant in accordance with sampling
criteria of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA). If lead paint and/or asbestos containing materials
are found, all lead containing paint and/or asbestos shall be
removed and disposed by a licensed and certified lead paint
and/or asbestos removal contractor, as applicable in
accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to
the start of activities that would disturb any ACM containing
materials or lead paint.
f) No Impact. The site is sufficiently free of hazardous materials, except for the potential for
the presence of asbestos or lead paint in the buildings. If asbestos or lead paint are
present, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure No. 4 above will reduce potential asbestos
and lead paint impacts to less-than-significant. From a hazards standpoint, the site could be
used as a school. There are no existing hazards or anticipated hazards associated with the
proposed project that would prevent the site from being used as a school or the proposed
project.
g) No Impact. The closest airport to the site is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4
miles northeast of the project. The project will not impact airport operations at El Monte
Airport or result in any safety hazards for project residents and employees.
h) No Impact. There are no private airports within two miles of the project. The project will
not impact or be impacted by operations at any private airport.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 44
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A hydrology report12 and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared by
Jong Chen Engineering. The hydrology report and SUSMP are included in Appendix E.
12 Preliminary Hydrology Report, Proposed Commercial Building Garvey Garden Plaza at 8408 Garvey Avenue,
Rosemead, CA 91770, October 4, 2014.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 45
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project could generate silt and other debris
with surface water runoff during project demolition and construction, especially if demolition
and construction occur during the winter months (November – April) when rainfall typically
occurs. The quality of storm water runoff generated from the site is regulated under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES storm water permit
provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of pollutants and establishing
appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into storm water runoff. As
a co-permitee to the County of Los Angeles, (NPDES No. CAS614001) the City of
Rosemead requires all development projects in its jurisdiction to comply with the NPDES
requirements for construction and operations as appropriate. Therefore, the project will be
required to install and maintain all applicable soil erosion control measures, including Best
Management Practices (BMP’s), to reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts
during grading and construction. The project developer will be required to submit the
completed Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan to the City prior to the issuance of a
grading permit to ensure that all applicable erosion control measures are installed and
maintained during construction to control water quality impacts.
To control surface water pollution, the project will be required, by law, to install a surface
storm water collection system to collect and treat the first ¾ of an inch of surface water
runoff from the site prior to off-site discharge. To comply with the law, the project proposes
to provide a planter box along the entire length of the southern project boundary to retain
and treat the first ¾ inch of surface water runoff. The planter box totals approximately 1,948
square feet in area and four feet deep and serves as soil and plant-based filtration device to
remove pollutants through a variety of biological, physical, and chemical treatment
processes. The proposed planter box has a capacity of 2,893 cubic feet. All surface water
runoff will be directed to the planter box at the southern project boundary for retention and
treatment prior to discharge. Any surface water greater than ¾ of an inch will be discharged
from the planter box via a 6-inch diameter drain to the curb and gutter system in Delta
Avenue adjacent to the project.
The proposed planter box in conjunction with the incorporation of all required BMPs will
allow the project to meet and comply with all applicable water quality and water discharge
requirements.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce water quality impacts to
less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer
shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) to the City for approval. All applicable erosion
control measures including Best Management Practices to
reduce erosion and minimize water quality impacts during
grading and construction shall be installed and maintained
during construction to control water quality impacts.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install a surface storm water collection system
to collect and treat the first ¾ of an inch of surface water runoff
from the site as approved by the City Engineer.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 46
Mitigation Measure No. 7 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install a planter box along the southern project
boundary with capacity to filter the first ¾ inch of project
generated storm water prior to its discharge into Delta Avenue.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes landscaping along the east and
southern project boundary. The project also proposes to plant tree wells along the north
and west project boundary and a planter box along the entire length of the southern project
boundary. The street trees along Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue and a planter box along
the southern project boundary will allow on-site water percolation. The planter box along the
southern project boundary will collect and treat the first ¾ inch of rain. The planter box will
collect runoff from the site that is currently discharged untreated into the local storm drain
system. The project will collect and direct the first ¾ inch of rainfall to the planter box and
allow project generated surface water to infiltrate and recharge the local groundwater. The
project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, but rather provide an on-site planter box to allow project runoff to
percolate into the local groundwater.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing storm water drainage pattern of the site is
generally towards the southeast corner and surface water drains to the adjacent properties
southeast of the site. Some surface water flows north to Garvey Avenue and east in the
curb and gutter. Surface water that currently enters Delta Avenue west of the site flows
south in in the curb and gutter in Delta Avenue. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, while small
quantities of project generated surface water runoff from the sidewalks and driveways will
continue to be directed towards Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue, the majority of the runoff
will be collected and discharged into a planter box along the southern project boundary for
on-site percolation. The project will not alter the general existing drainage pattern on the
site or cause erosion or siltation of a stream or river because the planter box will reduce the
amount of existing runoff from the site that is directed to the local storm drain system and
allow some of that runoff to percolate into the local groundwater. By reducing the amount of
runoff that will be generated from the site, the project will reduce and have a less-than-
significant impact to erosion or siltation either on or off the site.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “c)” above, surface water drainage
from the sidewalks and project driveways will continue to flow west to the existing curb and
gutter system in Delta Avenue and north to Garvey Avenue. The project is estimated to
generate approximately 0.22 cubic feet per second of runoff more than the existing condition
due to the increase in the impermeable surface area by the project. The project will
discharge most of the surface water runoff into a proposed planter box along the southern
project boundary for water quality treatment and percolation and reduce the amount of
runoff that would be discharged to the local storm drain system. The proposed on-site
planter box along the southern project boundary would reduce the amount of surface water
runoff that is currently generated from the site. By collecting and directing most of the
project generated surface water runoff to the on-site planter box, the potential flooding
impact by the project would be less-than-significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “d)” above and based on the
hydrology report, the incremental increase in project surface water will not exceed the
capacity of either the existing or proposed storm water drainage system that serves the
project. The existing local storm drain system (curb and gutter) in Delta Avenue and Garvey
Avenue, along with the regional downstream storm drain facilities that serve this area of
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 47
Rosemead have capacity to handle the additional 0.22 cubic feet per second of surface
water generated by the project. The discharge of the first ¾ inch of rainfall to the on-site
planter box along the southern project boundary for water quality treatment and percolation
will reduce the amount of surface currently discharged from the site. The storm drain
capacity impacts of the project will be less-than-significant.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.8 “a)” above, the quality of storm water
runoff from the project is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). The project will be required by law to collect and treat the first ¾ of an
inch of storm water runoff to remove debris and other pollutants. The project proposes a
storm water collection system to collect and filter the project runoff and discharge the runoff
to an on-site planter box along the southern project boundary that will allow runoff to
percolate into the soil. Most of the project runoff will be filtered and discharged into the on-
site planter box. During periods of high rainfall, storm water that overflows the planter box
will be discharged into a 6-inch pipe in the planter box and discharged into Delta Avenue
adjacent to the site. The project impact to surface water quality will be less-than-significant.
g) No Impact. The project site is not in a flood hazard zone. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) designates Rosemead to be in Zone “X”, which is outside the
100-year flood plain.13 The project will not place any housing in a flood hazard area.
h) No Impact. As noted in 3.8 “g)” above, the project is not located in a 100-year flood zone.
The proposed project is not subject to flooding and will not have an impact by redirecting or
impeding flood flows.
i) No Impact. There are no levees or dams upstream of the project that will flood the site in
the event of a levee or dam failure.
j) No Impact. There are no water bodies either on or adjacent to the project site that will
impact the site due to a seiche. The site is approximately twenty miles east of the Pacific
Ocean and will not be impacted by a tsunami. The site and the surrounding areas are flat
and not exposed to mudslides.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.9 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
13 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06037C1665FF, September 26,
2008.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 48
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community’s
conservation plan?
3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) No Impact. Examples of “dividing a community” include new roads, rail lines,
transmission corridors, or a major development project encompassing numerous city blocks
that creates a physical barrier between established neighborhoods or business districts.
The project proposes to construct a mixed use project with 11,860 square feet of retail on
the first floor and 46 residential units on the second through fourth floors. The project will
not divide the established surrounding community.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Rosemead General Plan designates the site as
Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) as shown in Figure 16, Land Use
Map. The zoning for the site is C-3-MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with
Residential/Commercial Mixed Use and Design Overlays).as shown in Figure 17, Zoning
Map.
The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for the
site and will not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change.
General Plan
The Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use designation allows a
maximum development of 34 units on the site.14 and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 with
up to 87,120 square feet of commercial use. The project proposes 46 residential units,
including 12 low income units, 690 square foot manager’s apartment, and 2,410 square feet
of lobby, meter and utility room space for a total of 42,930 square feet of residential use and
11,860 square feet of retail use on the first floor for a total development of 54,790 square
feet. The project proposes a FAR of 1.25, which is less than the maximum 2.0:1 FAR
allowed for the site by the Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3 stories) land use.
The project is consistent with the current Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (30 du/ac; 3
stories) land use designation.
Zoning
The project is consistent with and meets the standards for development in the C-3 zone,
including the building height. The height of the proposed four story building is 45 feet and
complies with the 75 foot maximum height allowed in the C-3 zone. The project meets and
complies with all other applicable development standards, including minimum lot area,
minimum lot width/depth, and floor area ratio (FAR).
Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay (RCMUDO)
The purpose of the RCMUDO is to provide opportunities for well-designed development
projects that combine residential with nonresidential uses, including office, retail, business
services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community amenities
14 Based on a 1.13 acre site and 30- du/acre, a maximum of 34 units can be developed on the site.
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Rosemead General Plan Figure 16Land Use Map
Project Location
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Rosemead General Plan Figure 17Zoning Map
Project Location
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 51
designated with the mixed-use land use designations in the City of Rosemead General Plan,
and consistent with the policy direction in the General Plan.15
The intent of the RCMUDO is to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Create a viable, walkable urban environment that encourages pedestrian activity and
reduces dependence on the automobile, through a streetscape that is connected,
attractive, safe and engaging.
2. Provide complementary residential and commercial uses within walking distance of
each other.
3. Develop an overall urban design framework to ensure that the quality, appearance
and effects of buildings, improvements and uses are compatible with the City design
criteria and goals.
4. Create quality residential/commercial mixed-use development that maintains value
through buildings with architectural qualities that create attractive street scenes and
enhance the public realm.
5. Provide a variety of open space, including private, recreation areas and public open
space and parks.
6. Revitalize commercial corridors with residential/commercial mixed-use developments
that attract and encourage market-driven private investment.
7. Encourage parking solutions that are incentives for creative planning and sustainable
neighborhood design.
The RCMUDO is an overlay zone, which may be applied to existing zoning districts as
designated in the General Plan. The RCMUDO Zone district provides the option of
developing a property under the base zone district, or developing a residential/commercial
mixed-use development under the overlay zone. In this case, the RCMUDO zone is applied
to the C-3 zone and the project as proposed is consistent with the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium
Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) Zone.
Residential/commercial mixed-use development shall combine and integrate residential
uses with commercial, institutional, and office uses utilizing a strong pedestrian orientation.
The mix of uses may be combined in a vertical residential/commercial mixed-use building or
combined in separate buildings located on one property and/or under unified control. The
mix of uses percentage shall be as designated in the General Plan.16
The types of uses allowed with the RCMUDO zone include a variety of commercial uses,
including retail stores and businesses as allowed by RMC 17.74.040. The retail and
business uses proposed for the project have not specifically been identified at this time.
However, all future approved business for the site would have to comply with the businesses
permitted by RMC 17.74.040.
15 RMC 17.74.010 A 16 RMC 17.74.020.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 52
Consistent with RMC 17.74.040F.4, the proposed 46 residential units are located on three
floors above the proposed first floor of commercial use. The project, as proposed, meets
and complies with all of the applicable RCMUDO development standards, with the exception
of the types of commercial uses allowed for the site. As noted above, all allowed
commercial uses must meet the permitted uses in RMC 17.74.040.
Design Overlay
The purpose of the design overlay zone is to assure orderly development and that buildings,
structures, signs and landscaping will be harmonious within a specified area; to prevent the
development of structures or uses which are not of acceptable exterior design or
appearance or are of inferior quality or likely to have a depreciating or negative effect on the
local environment or surrounding area by reasons of use, design, appearance or other
criteria affecting value.17
The Design Overlay requires the precise plan for the project be approved by the Planning
Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design review of the precise
development plan includes architecture and design, number of stories, height, fences,
landscape, color, signage, proposed uses, mechanical equipment screening, etc.18. The
review and approval of the precise development plan in compliance with the design
requirements of RMC Chapter 17.72 would ensure the project meets the City’s design
requirements for development in the Design Overlay Zone.
Density Bonus
The project proposes 10 low and moderate income units as part of the proposed 46
residential units and allows the applicant a 35% density bonus. The proposed 10 low
income residential units represent 20% of the 46 proposed units. While the C-3 zone allows
a maximum of 34 units, the 35% density bonus with the proposed 10 low income units, the
project is allowed to develop up to 46 residential units. Therefore, with the density bonus
the project is consistent with the C-3 zoning.
Project Concessions
The 35% density bonus allows the project applicant up to two development concessions, if
necessary. Due to several site constraints, the project applicant is requesting two
concessions from the RCMUDO development standards.
1. The RCMUDO zone allows three stories with a maximum building height of 45’.
The project proposes four stories, including a ground floor of retail use and three
stories of apartments above the ground floor of retail.
2. The second concession is for density. The RCMUDO zone allows a maximum
density of 67% of residential and 33% of commercial use. The density proposed
by the project totals 78.4% residential and 21.6% commercial use. Therefore,
the project exceeds and does not meet the maximum ratio of residential and
commercial use.
17 RMC 17.72.020. 18 RMC 17.72.040 B.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 53
The project meets the development standards for the RCMUDO zone, with the exception of
the two requested concessions. Although the project is requesting two concessions, the
project as proposed, including the allowance of the two development concessions, would
not result in any significant land use impacts. The compliance of the project with all other
required development standards would ensure the project meets all requirements for
development in the RCMUDO zone. The project is not anticipated to have any significant
land use impacts.
c) No Impact. The City does not have any areas with adopted habitat or natural community
conservation plans. The project will not impact any natural communities or conservation
plans since none exist on or adjacent to the project.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.10 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
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?
3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
a) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board classify land in California on the
availability of mineral resources. There are four Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)
designations for the classification of sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. According to
the State Mining and Geology Board19 the project site is within the MRZ-4 classification20.
As Rosemead is completely urbanized and the State has not identified any significant
recoverable mineral resources, no mineral extraction activities are permitted within the City
limits. There are no mining activities either on the site or the properties surrounding and
adjacent to the site. The project will not have a significant impact to mineral resources of
value to the region or residents of the state.
b) No Impact. Based on information in 3.10 “a)” above, there are no locally important
mineral resources in Rosemead, which includes the project site. The project will not impact
any locally important mineral resource.
19 Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and
Orange Counties – Part II, Los Angeles County. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology,
1994. 20 MRZ-4 – There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 54
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.11 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
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 expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
3.11 NOISE
A noise report21 was prepared by Giroux & Associates. The noise report is included in
Appendix E.
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is located in an urbanized area and
adjacent to Delta Avenue, which is a local roadway on the west and Garvey Avenue on the
north that is a Major Arterial. The existing noise levels on the site are due to the on-site
activities, traffic on Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue and daily activities of residential and
commercial uses in the vicinity of the site.
Noise Standards
For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the
amount of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses. For regulated on-site sources of
noise generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an
acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50
metric used in the Rosemead noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the
21 Noise Impact Analysis, Rosemead Garden Plaza, Giroux & Associates, December 3, 2014.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 55
measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour. One-half of all readings may exceed this
average standard with larger excursions from the average allowed for progressively shorter
periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration up to a never-to-exceed
20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels limits are reduced
by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time period.
The City L50 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and
45 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial uses the L50 standard is 65 dB during the
day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for
residential and commercial uses are shown in Table 11. In the event that the ambient noise
level exceeds any of the noise standards, the standards shall be increased to reflect the
ambient noise level.
The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with
heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and
to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not
permitted on Sundays or Federal Holidays.
Table 11
Rosemead Noise Ordinance Limits
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of Exceedance
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
Baseline Noise Levels
Short term on-site noise measurements were made to document the existing baseline levels
both on the site and in the project area. The baseline noise levels are used as the basis to
calculate future noise levels by the project to the surrounding community and existing noise
levels from the community on the project. Noise monitoring was conducted Monday,
November 10, 2014 at approximately 2:30-3:30 p.m. at two locations as shown in Figure 18.
The noise levels that were measured at the two noise measurement locations are shown in
Table 12. Noise measurement location 1 is representative of the noise levels that exist
along Delta Avenue adjacent to the project site. Approximately 50 feet from the centerline of
Delta Avenue, the existing noise levels are expected to be approximately 63 dB CNEL.
Meter 2 was located on the corner of Garvey and Delta Avenues and the noise
measurements reflect the existing worst case on-site noise levels. The measured noise
levels at noise measurement location 2 are approximately 72-73 dB CNEL at 50 feet from
the centerline of Garvey Avenue. The City of Rosemead considers CNELS up to 70 dB to
be conditionally acceptable for residential use and requires a noise analysis.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 56
Figure 18
Noise Measurement Locations
Table 12
Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90
1 60 77 44 62 58 56 46
2 69 79 56 72 70 67 59
Off-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
The long-term vehicle noise impacts of the project were determined using the California
specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (FHWA
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). Table 13 summarizes the
calculated 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along project area
roadway segments. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; the 2014 existing conditions
“with project” and “without project” and 2017 “with project” and “without project”.
Meter 2
Meter 1
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 57
Table 13
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
(dBA CNEL at 50 Feet from Centerline)
Segment 2014 No
Project
2014 With
Project
2017 No
Project
2017 With
Project
Garvey Avenue Willard-Charlotte 71.9 72.0 72.1 72.1
Charlotte-San Gabriel 72.3 72.4 72.5 72.5
Delta Avenue South of Garvey 63.2 63.2 63.3 63.4
Walnut Grove
Avenue South of Garvey 70.7 70.7 70.8 70.8
North of Garvey 71.2 71.2 71.3 71.3
North of Hellman 72.5 72.5 72.7 72.7
Fern Avenue Dearle-Delta 60.9 61.0 61.1 61.1
San Gabriel
Boulevard North of Dorothy 72.9 72.9 73.0 73.0
Table 14 shows the change in the noise levels due specifically to the project. As shown, the
2017 project opening year noise levels do not significantly increase. The largest project
related noise level increase is +0.1 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of the adjacent
roadways and most segments show no discernable noise level increase. Because the area
is built out, the addition of project traffic to area roadways does not significantly increase and
impact the existing traffic noise environment. The cumulative analysis, which includes the
development of three other area projects, compares the “future with project” to “existing”
conditions and shows a maximum noise level increase of +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from
roadway centerlines.
Table 14
Project Traffic Noise Level Increases
(dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline)
Segment 2014 Project
Only
2017 Project
Only
Cumulative
Impacts*
Garvey Ave/ Willard-Charlotte 0.0 0.0 0.2
Charlotte-San
Gabriel 0.1 0.1 0.2
Delta Ave/ S of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2
Walnut Grove
Ave/ S of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1
N of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1
N of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1
Fern Ave/ Dearle-Delta 0.1 0.1 0.2
San Gabriel Blvd/ N of Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.1
*The difference between “2017 with project” and “2014 existing” traffic noise levels.
Under ambient conditions, people generally do not clearly perceive noise level changes until
there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to define "substantial
increase." An increase of +3 dBA CNEL in traffic noise would be considered a significant
impact. Based on the information in Table 14, the maximum noise level increase by the
project and cumulative projects is calculated to be +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the
roadway centerlines. Therefore, the project and the cumulative noise level impacts are less-
than-significant.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 58
On-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
At 50 feet from centerline of the roads adjacent to the site, the future traffic noise levels are
calculated to be 72 dB CNEL along Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenues. The residential
component of the project is approximately 100 feet from the roadway centerlines with traffic
noise levels calculated to be as high as 68 dB CNEL. Although the City of Rosemead
guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL, a noise level of 65 dB is the
level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry on a normal
conversation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the
exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California.
Many of the proposed residential units have balconies facing the adjacent roadways.
Therefore, it is recommended that all balconies facing Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue
be equipped with a 5-foot transparent glass or plastic shield enclosure that would permit
view while mitigating noise from the adjacent roadways. An enclosure would provide at
least -5 dB of noise attenuation and reduce noise on any balcony with a direct view of
Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue to below 65 dB CNEL.
The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood-framed construction
with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction
is as follows:
Partly open windows – 12 dB
Closed single-paned windows – 20 dB
Closed dual-paned windows – 30 dB
The use of dual-paned windows is required by the California Building Code (CBC) for
energy conservation in new residential construction. The maximum 45 dB interior noise
standards will be met by the project with a large margin of safety as long as residents have
the option to close their windows. Where window closure is needed to shut out noise,
supplemental ventilation is required by the (CBC) with some specified gradation of fresh air.
Central air conditioning or a fresh air inlet on a whole house fan would meet this
requirement.
Because commercial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise exposure
standard for less sensitive land uses is less stringent. Unless commercial projects include
noise-sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, noise exposure is generally not considered a
commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise. At this time the project
does not proposed any outdoor dining space. The noise impacts to the retail uses proposed
for the ground level will be less-than-significant.
On-Site Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts
Although the City of Rosemead guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL,
a noise level of 65 dB is the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability
to carry on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A
noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline
for new residential dwellings in California.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 59
The future with project traffic noise level along Delta Avenue is calculated to be
approximately 63 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline and less than the 65 dB CNEL
exterior noise compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California.
The noise level on the site adjacent to Garvey Avenue is calculated to reach 72 dB CNEL at
50 feet from roadway centerline. The proposed residential units along Garvey Avenue have
balconies that front Garvey Avenue. The closest proposed patios are approximately 60 feet
from the centerline of Garvey Avenue. At 60 feet, the exterior noise level is estimated to be
71 dB CNEL. If the patios of the units that front Garvey Avenue are required to meet the
established 65 dBA CNEL noise threshold, noise mitigation would be required. In this case,
a shield would break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source. A transparent
5.5 foot tall plexi-glass wall would reduce noise levels to 65 dBA CNEL and still allow views
by the residents through the plexi-glass.
The central garden and recreational facility is protected from off-site noise by the perimeter
structures such that noise levels are calculated to be less than 65 dBA CNEL.
The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood-framed construction
with stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction
is as follows:
Partly open windows – 12 dB
Closed single-paned windows – 20 dB
Closed dual-paned windows – 30 dB
The use of dual-paned windows for residential construction is required by the California
Building Code (CBC) for energy conservation in new residential construction. Interior noise
standards will be met as long as residents have the option to close their windows. Where
window closure is needed to shut out noise, supplemental ventilation is required by the CBC
with some specified gradation of fresh air. Central air conditioning or a fresh air inlet on a
whole house fan would meet this requirement.
Because the project commercial uses are not proposed to be occupied on a 24-hour basis,
the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is generally is less
stringent. Unless a commercial project includes a noise-sensitive use, such as outdoor
dining, the potential noise exposure and noise impact is generally not considered a
commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise levels. Since the project
does not propose any outdoor commercial dining space, the proposed commercial uses are
not anticipated to be significantly impacted by either existing or future noise levels.
Site Operational Noise
The daily operations of the project will generate a variety of noises from a several sources.
In areas where commercial and residential uses share a common property line, it is often not
the overall magnitude of the noise that leads to noise impacts, but rather some unique
aspect of the noise event that causes a noise impact. Early morning deliveries and back-up
alarms are several sources that can create noise impacts in a mixed use environment. Also,
late evening commercial activities, such as clean-up operations when trash is dumped, etc.
can generate noise and impact on-site and adjacent residents. Refuse collection vehicles
could be restricted to daytime hours to reduce potential commercial noise activities to on-
and off-site residents.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 60
All residential uses require sufficient distance separation from commercial buildings to
prevent HVAC mechanical equipment on building roofs from being a nuisance. If not
possible, the HVAC equipment will need to be shielded. A typical HVAC equipment noise
level is 50 dB at 10 feet from the source. The City’s daytime noise standard is 46 dB L50 and
the nighttime residential ordinance standard is 45 dB L50. The 45 dB L50 standard is met
approximately 30 feet from a single mechanical equipment source. Multiple mechanical
units may have a larger noise impact “envelope.” The operation of multiple HVAC or other
mechanical equipment units, therefore, must be screened from a direct line-of-sight to any
off-site residences.
The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce noise impacts to less-than-
significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 8 Project related operational hours for the following activities are
recommended to be restricted as follows:
There shall be no delivery vehicle (no trucks) deliveries
between the hours of 10 p.m. to 9 a.m.
Refuse collection vehicles shall restrict activity to between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is
restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. adjacent to a
residential property line.
Construction activities are restricted by the City of
Rosemead Noise Ordinance. While construction noise is
not expected to exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use
(residences north of the site), construction noise can be
minimized with the implementation of the following
conditions:
• All motorized construction equipment shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that
will create the greatest distance between construction-
related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors
nearest the project site during all project construction.
• Haul truck and other construction-related trucks
traveling to and from the project site shall be restricted
to the same hours specified for the operation of
construction equipment.
• To the extent feasible, construction haul routes shall
not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential
dwellings.
Mitigation Measure No. 9 An acoustical study shall be submitted to the City prior to the
issuance of a building permit to show that all balconies facing
Garvey Avenue have a transparent glass or plastic shield to
create outdoor space that achieves the 65 dB CNEL or less.
b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating
motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but in this case through
the earth or solid objects rather than the air. Unlike noise, vibration is typically at a
frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural (e.g., earthquakes,
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 61
volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides) or man-made (e.g., explosions, the action of
heavy machinery, or heavy vehicles such as trains).
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over
unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne
vibration include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of
items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the “soft” sedimentary
surfaces of much of Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped. Because
vibration is typically not an issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance
thresholds. Vibration thresholds have been adopted for major public works construction
projects, but these relate mostly to structural protection (cracking foundations or stucco)
rather than to human annoyance.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude
may be characterized in three ways, including displacement, velocity, and acceleration.
Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its
original position and, for the purposes of soil displacement, is typically measured in inches
or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per
second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change in velocity with
respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically,
particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration
(measured in gravities) are used to describe vibration.
Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a
vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of
vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows:
65 VdB - threshold of human perception
72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events
80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events
100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage
To determine the potential vibration impacts of project construction activities, estimates of
vibration levels induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented in
Table 15.
Table 15
Vibration Levels from Project Construction Activities
Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)*
Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 75 69
Loaded Truck 86 80 74 68
Jackhammer 79 73 67 61
Small Bulldozer 58 52 46 40
* (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995)
The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a
large bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment
is 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibrational energy spreading loss, the
vibration annoyance standard of 72 VdB is met at 56 feet. Effects of vibration perception
such as rattling windows could only occur at the nearest residential structures, though
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 62
vibration resulting from project construction would not exceed cosmetic damage threshold of
100 VdB.
Large bulldozers are not anticipated to be operating directly adjacent to the shared property
line with the adjacent residents. Final grading at and near the property east and south
property line should be performed with small bulldozers, which are shown above to have a
30 VdB or less vibration potential.
To ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce construction activity vibration impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 10 Small bulldozers only shall be permitted to operate within 56
feet of the nearest adjacent residential structures.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11 “a)” above, project
generated noise must comply with the City of Rosemead Noise Ordinance in terms of the
allowable noise levels crossing the boundary between the two uses, including noise from the
movement of vehicles on private property. The specific noise limits that are considered an
acceptable exposure for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources were shown
in Table 11. As shown in Table 14 earlier, the project generated noise levels are not
projected to increase significantly and impact area residents or businesses. Thus, the
project will not significantly change or increase the existing levels of noise that exist on the
site. The project will not have a substantial permanent increase in the existing (ambient)
noise levels on or adjacent to the site.
There will be noise generated within the subterranean parking structure. The noise that is
typically associated with a parking structure include car starts, car doors shutting, people
talking, car alarms, car horns, tire squeal, and cars entering and leaving the structure.
Based on the estimated noise levels, the project is not anticipated to generate noise within
the parking structure that will significantly impact residents north of the project.
The noise generated by the project is not anticipated to substantially increase the ambient
noise level either on the site or the immediate vicinity of the site and significantly impact
area residents. The potential noise impacts of the project will be less-than-significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate short-term noise during project
demolition of the existing site improvements and grading and construction of the project,
including site improvements. Figure 19 shows the typical range of construction equipment
noise during various construction phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the
noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 95 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source.
Existing buildings and other noise barriers to interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential
“noise envelope” around individual construction sites is reduced.
The Noise Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with
heavy equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and
to not exceed 85 dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not
permitted on Sunday or a federal holiday. Construction noise impacts can be mitigated to
less-than-significant by compliance with RMC 8.36.030 A.3 that restricts construction from 7
AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday and no construction on Sunday or a federal holiday.
e) No Impact. The closest airport is El Monte Airport, which is approximately 4 miles
northeast of the site. Operations at the El Monte Airport will not expose project residents,
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: Phil Martin & Associates, Inc.Figure 19Construction Noise Levels
N
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 64
employees or customers to excessive noise levels. The project will not be impacted by or
impact operations at the El Monte Airport
f) No Impact. See response to 3.11 “e” above.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.12 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace the existing commercial
buildings and residential units on the site with a mixed use building consisting of retail space
and 46 apartments. The 46 apartments include 30 two bedroom apartments, 15 three
bedroom apartments, and 1 one bedroom apartment. Based on the type of units proposed,
it is anticipated that many of the future project residents are existing Rosemead residents
and currently live in Rosemead. Any existing Rosemead residents that move to and
relocate from their existing residence in Rosemead to the project will not increase the city’s
population. For those future project residents that live outside Rosemead and move to the
site, the city’s population is not anticipated to increase significantly.
However, at this time, it is not anticipated that a significant number of the project residents
currently live outside Rosemead and when they move to the site will significantly increase
the population of the city. As a result, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase
or induce a population growth in Rosemead. The project will have a less-than-significant
impact to the population of Rosemead.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will require the demolition of three existing
residences in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the two-story commercial building
at the northwest corner of the site has apartments on the second floor. This two-story
building will be demolished by the project and the residents will be displaced and required to
find suitable replacement housing in Rosemead, or other areas. The displacement of the
families that currently reside on the site will not require the construction of replacement
housing because comparable replacement housing is available in Rosemead. The project,
once constructed, could provide suitable housing for the families that will be displaced by
the project. The City of Rosemead Housing Department provides various forms of housing
assistance and is available to assist any project residents that are displaced. The City
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 65
Housing Department can assist to provide replacement rental housing, senior housing,
down payment assistance, and other assistance to find suitable replacement housing in
Rosemead. The project will not displace any existing housing that necessitates the
construction of replacement housing.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.12 “(b)” above, there is suitable housing in
Rosemead for the families that will be displaced by the project without the need to construct
suitable replacement housing. The apartments that are proposed by the project could
provide replacement housing for the displaced families once the apartments are
constructed. The project would have less-than-significant impacts to the displaced family.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.13 Public Services
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:
a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. Replacing the existing older buildings on the site with a new
building that meets all applicable California Building Codes (CBC) could reduce the need for
fire protection services at the site by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in the future.
As a result, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the Los Angeles
County Fire Department.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided by the Los
Angeles County Sheriff Department. The Temple Sheriff’s Station located at 8838 Las
Tunas Drive serves the project site. Compared to the existing condition, the project is
anticipated to increase calls for police protection due to more people and increased activity
compared to existing conditions. The incorporation of security measures, such as
surveillance cameras, proper lighting, and secure doors and windows will minimize the
increase in service calls to the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. The project will
have less-than-significant impacts to the Sheriff Department with incorporation of the
following mitigation measure.
c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is in the Garvey School District.
The development of 46 residential units will generate students to schools in the District. The
District does not have a student generation rate for the types of residential units proposed.
Typically, multi-family residences generate fewer students than single-family detached
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 66
residences. The District does not differentiate between single-family detached units and
multi-family units in terms of student generation.
The District collects a development fee for residential and commercial development. The
student impact fee is used by schools to provided additional classrooms to accommodate
the students generated by residential and commercial/industrial development projects. The
project developer will be required to pay the State mandated student impact fee to the
District before building permits are issued for construction. The following mitigation measure
is recommended to mitigate the impact of the students generated by the project to the
Garvey Unified School District to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 11 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall pay any required student impact fee to the Garvey
Unified School District.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project is required to provide 6,900 square
feet of common outdoor open space. The project proposes approximately 9,560 square feet
of common open space in the form of the central courtyard, outdoor recreation area and
landscaping, or 2,660 square feet more common open space than required. The project is
also required to provide 2,760 square feet of private open space and the project proposes
5,857 square feet, or 3,097 more square feet of private open space in the form of balconies
and private decks than required by the Municipal Code. The private open space that is
proposed by the project includes a common garden area that is proposed for the southeast
corner of the first floor and includes outdoor seating space and a central fountain for use by
the residents. The private open space also includes the private balconies for each
apartment. Therefore, the project will exceed the amount of public and private open space
that is required for the site.
It is anticipated that any existing Rosemead residents that move to the project will not
significantly increase their use of City park and recreational facilities. For those residents
that move to the site from outside Rosemead, there could be an increase in the use of City
park and recreational facilities. It is anticipated that most of the project residents will not use
City park and recreational facilities to a level that will significantly impact the existing
facilities.
The project developer will be required to pay the city-required park fee of $880 per
apartment as required by RMC 12.44.020. The park fee will be used by the City to provide
new park and recreational facilities or upgrade existing facilities for use by the residents.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to mitigate project impacts to City park
and recreational facilities to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 12 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall pay any required park fee to the City of Rosemead.
e) No Impact. There are no activities associated with the project that will require or need
public facilities or result in an impact to public facilities.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 67
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.14 Recreation
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?
3.14 RECREATION
a) No Impact. The residents of the project could increase the use of and impact existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities in Rosemead or other
community in the area. The project residents could increase the use of area parks and
include Zapopan Park, a neighborhood park that is less than a quarter mile north of the site.
Other parks in Rosemead that would be available to project residents include Rosemead
Park and as well as other neighborhood and mini parks. Rosemead also has the 3.5 acre
Jess Gonzales Sports Complex park that is available for use by its residents. Rosemead
residents can also use the Whittier Narrows Recreation Area which is a 1,000 regional park
and located southeast of Rosemead and provides a mixture of recreational opportunities
including a golf course, fishing, shooting ranges, picnic areas, etc.
As discussed in Section 3.13 “d)” above, the project does not propose to provide any public
park or recreational facilities and payment of the required park fee will be used by the City to
provide public recreational facilities that can be used by the project residents. The project
is not anticipated to have any recreational impacts with the incorporation of Mitigation
Measure No. 12.
b) No Impact. As discussed in 3.14 “a)” above, the project does not propose to construct
any recreational facilities. Therefore, the project will not construct new or expand any
existing city recreational facilities that could have a physical effect on the environment. The
project will not have any recreational facility construction impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.15 Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 68
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A traffic report was prepared by VA Consulting to determine the potential traffic impacts of
the project. The traffic report is included in Appendix F.
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic study estimates the project will generate
approximately 619 average daily vehicle trips, including 39 AM peak hour trips and 59 PM
peak hour trips as shown in Table 16.
The project is proposed to be constructed in a single phase and completed mid-2017.
Baseline 2017 traffic volumes, the estimated opening year of the project, were developed by
factoring existing 2014 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% and then adding traffic
from future cumulative development projects in the area.
As a mixed-use development, some internal trip capture can be expected such as tenants
patronizing the proposed commercial uses. The credit of the internal trips would reduce the
number of external trips occurring on the surrounding roadway network. During PM peak
hour, the project internal capture rate is estimated to be 6.8%. However, for the worst case
condition, no internal trip capture was considered in the traffic analysis. Although the project
site is served by public transit and proposes on-site bike stalls and is within walking distance
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 69
Table 16
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily
Split
Split
Land Use Unit
ITE Land
Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out
1. Multi-Family Residential DU 220 46 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35%
2. Commercial - Retail SF 820 5,730 42.70 0.96 62% 38% 3.71 48% 52%
3. Commercial - Office SF 710 6,130 11.03 1.56 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83%
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Volume
Land Use Quantity
ADT
Total In Out Total In Out
1. Multi-Family Residential 46
306
23 5 18 29 19 10
2. Commercial - Retail 5,730
245
6 4 2 21 10 11
3. Commercial - Office 6,130
68
10 9 1 9 2 7
Total 619 18 21 31 28
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 70
of other residential development in the immediate area, the traffic study assumed that all
external trips arrive by motor vehicle. As a result, the estimated project trip generation
reflects a worst-case condition.
The traffic report studied 10 area intersections as shown in Figure 20. The ten studied
intersections include:
1. San Gabriel at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
2. San Gabriel Boulevard at I-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled);
3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
6. Walnut Grove Avenue at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
8. I-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and
10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized).
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 21 shows the distribution and assignment of the estimated traffic by the project. As
shown, 10% of the project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west via the I-10
Freeway with 20% each assigned to/from the east and west via Garvey Avenue. Ten
percent (10%) and 15% of the estimated project traffic is assigned to/from the north and
south, respectively, along San Gabriel Boulevard. Five percent (5%) of the project traffic
each is assigned to/from the north and south via Walnut Grove Avenue and 5% to/from
Delta Avenue to the south.
Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
Based on the estimated trip generation and project trip distribution, the project traffic
volumes are shown in Figures 22 and 23 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
To evaluate the levels of service at the 10 study area intersections with Existing 2014 and
Baseline 2017 with project conditions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method
was used to evaluate the existing and future levels of service (LOS) for signalized
intersections and the LOS for unsignalized intersection was determined by the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations method. The target level of service to be
maintained throughout the project study area has been established by the City of Rosemead
as Level of Service D.
All of the studied stop-controlled intersections are located within the I-10 Freeway
interchange corridor and operated by Caltrans. The HCM operations method is consistent
with Caltrans requirements for unsignalized intersection analysis. The 2000 HCM
operations level of service method is based on worst-case delay for the controlled
approaches. However, Caltrans uses average control delay as the basis of LOS and
generally significantly lower than worst-case delay. Therefore, the delay and LOS
associated with both values are shown for the studied unsignalized intersections.
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
0
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
V
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: VA Consulting, Inc.Figure 21Project Trip Distribution
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
i
n
k
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
V
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
Ga
r
v
e
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
P
l
a
z
a
Ph
i
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
i
n
k
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
V
A
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
,
I
n
c
.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 75
Table 17 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area
intersections with the existing 2014 conditions and Table 18 shows the results of the
intersection level of service analysis for the 2017 Baseline conditions.
Table 17
Existing (2014) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections – Without Project
As shown in Table 17, all study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service D or
better during AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of two intersections. The San
Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the PM peak hour
and the Caltrans I-10 westbound ramps at Walnut Grove Avenue operate at LOS F during
both the AM and PM peak hours. However, the PM peak hour ICU value at the San Gabriel
Boulevard and Garvey Avenue intersection is 0.91 and only exceeds the limit for LOS D by
0.01. The LOS F at the I-10 westbound ramps at Walnut Grove Avenue is a worst-case
movement associated with the eastbound left-turn from the westbound loop off-ramp, which
is a non-project related traffic movement. The average delay at the I-10 westbound ramps
at Walnut Grove Avenue intersection is 13.0 seconds per vehicle with LOS B during the AM
peak hour, and 22.4 seconds per vehicle with LOS C during the PM peak hour.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 76
Table 18
Baseline (2017) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 77
Table 18 shows that the LOS for the study area intersections for the baseline year of 2017 is
the same as the 2014 conditions, with the exception of the I-10 freeway eastbound loop off-
ramp to San Gabriel Boulevard (NB), which is a non-project movement. The LOS for this
specific movement is calculated to decline to LOS E from the existing LOS D in the PM peak
hour. However, the calculated worst-case delay for this movement exceeds the threshold
for LOS D by only 0.3 seconds. Based on the Caltrans average delay analysis guidelines,
the PM peak hour LOS is A with 8.5 seconds delay per vehicle. All other studied
intersections will continue to operate at the same acceptable LOS as the current 2014
conditions during both peak hours.
Baseline 2017 with Project Conditions
Table 19 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the Baseline 2017
opening year with the project. As shown, all of the studied intersections will continue to
operate at LOS D, or better, with the exception of the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey
Avenue intersection that will operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. However, there is
very little change in the PM peak hour LOS at this intersection by the project compared to
the no project scenario for the year 2017. The Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element
identifies improvements to the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection that will
add one through lane in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future.
Figure 24 shows the roadways surrounding the project are calculated to operate below their
respective capacity based on 24-hour volumes for the baseline year of 2017 with the project,
with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue at the I-10
interchanges. However, as previously noted, the actual daily roadway capacities at these
locations are anticipated to be somewhat higher than the capacities used in the volume to
capacity intersection analysis due to the unrestricted ramp turning movements. Therefore,
project traffic is not anticipated to have any operational deficiencies to any area roadways
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A traffic signal warrant analysis based on peak hour volumes was performed for the studied
non-signalized study area intersections for both the existing 2014 with the project condition
and the baseline 2017 with project condition. The Walnut Grove Avenue at the Caltrans I-10
westbound off-ramp signal was satisfied for both the AM and PM peak hours for the existing
2014 conditions and for all subsequent scenarios. The conclusion of this traffic signal
warrants indicates more rigorous 4 hour and 8 hour signal warrants may be justified for the
existing condition at this intersection. However, project traffic will not impact this
intersection.
The project traffic will not cause any of the studied intersections to exceed an unacceptable
level of service or exceed their existing level of service. All area roadways will continue to
operate within their design capacity. The project traffic will have less-than-significant traffic
impacts.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 78
Table 19
Baseline (2017) with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
Garvey Garden PlazaPhil Martin & Associates, Inc.
Source: VA Consulting, Inc.Figure 24Baseline 2017 With Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes and Volume to Capacity Ratios
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 80
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in 3.15 “a)” above, the project is estimated
to generate 619 daily vehicle trips. The traffic report utilized 2017 as the traffic analysis
baseline based on the date the project is scheduled to be completed and operational. The
2017 baseline traffic volumes were developed by factoring the existing 2014 traffic volumes
with an ambient growth rate of 1% and traffic from four cumulative development projects in
the project area. The 2017 cumulative traffic volumes were used to determine the potential
project traffic impact to the area transportation system. The 2017 traffic volumes shown
previously in Figures 22 and 23 take into the account the 1% estimated growth in area traffic
and traffic from the four identified cumulative projects. As discussed in Section 3.15 “a”
above, the project will not have any significant cumulative traffic impacts. All area
intersections will continue to operate at City acceptable levels of service with the project and
the four cumulative projects.
The project will not cause any roadways or intersections to exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, their current level of service. As a result, the project will have less-than-
significant cumulative traffic impacts to any area intersections that will serve the project.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by Metro bus lines 70 and 770
and Rosemead Explorer fixed-route shuttle service. There are existing bus stops on the
northeast and southwest corners of the intersection of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue
adjacent to the project with concrete bus pads and bus shelters. There are no bus stops
along the project frontage on Garvey Avenue.
The project will not impact the existing bus stops adjacent to the site. The project does not
propose to construct or install any new bus stops along the project frontage on Garvey
Avenue. Project residents and retail tenants and customers will use the two existing bus
shelters adjacent to the site. The two existing bus shelters will encourage residents, retail
and office employees, and customers to use public transportation to travel to and from the
project. In addition, the project proposes 14 bicycle stalls on the ground level parking as
required by the RCMUDO zone overlay for a viable alternative for the use of motor vehicles.
The project will not have any significant conflicts or impacts with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation. The project will have a positive impact by
provided the required bicycle parking stalls as required by the City.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will be served by the existing
adjacent streets and intersections without any changes or modifications. The project does
not propose to change or modify any curves or other existing features to the adjacent streets
that would create a traffic hazard.
The project proposes two driveways from Delta Avenue including a central 25-foot wide
driveway approximately mid-way along the project frontage and a 26-foot wide driveway
near the south end of the site. Both driveways provide ingress and egress to the 48 ground-
level parking spaces serving the retail/office uses, leasing office, and loading zone, and a
security gate controlled ramp leading to the basement-level for resident parking.
Both project driveways provide full vehicle access. The project driveways will not have any
significant vehicle queuing impacts on Delta Avenue. The traffic volumes at the project
driveways will have less than an average of 30 vehicles per driveway during the peak hours.
There is approximately 150 feet from the back of the crosswalk on Delta Avenue at Garvey
Avenue to the north side of the northerly driveway to allow adequate vehicle stacking. Once
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 81
the project is constructed, the vehicles that currently park along the project frontage on Delta
Avenue could impact the sight of motorists that are exiting the project onto Delta Avenue.
All project driveways must meet City driveway standards for adequate site access and site
distance. The following mitigation measure will ensure the project driveways meet City
driveway standards and reduce traffic hazard impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 13 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project developer
shall design the two project driveways in compliance with City
driveway standards for site access and site distance.
On-Site Circulation
The proposed project driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured
for the project volumes and must meet City of Rosemead design standards before a building
permit will be issued. In addition, sight-distance requirements at the project driveways must
meet City design standards before issuance of a building permit.
The height of the entry at the northerly driveway from Delta Avenue to the subterranean
parking and the ramp at the east side of the project to the subterranean level will restrict the
height of vehicles that can safely access the subterranean parking structure, including
delivery vehicles for the retail/commercial uses. Because of the restricted driveway heights,
the following measures are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with
delivery vehicles to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 14 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) entering the site from Delta
Avenue shall have a maximum height of 8’6”.
To ensure that retail/commercial deliveries do not impact the parking spaces that are
designed for customers and employees, the following measure is recommended to reduce
delivery vehicle loading area impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 15 All delivery vehicles (no trucks) shall park in the designated
Loading areas located within the commercial parking areas.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in 3.15 “d” above, the project proposes two
separate ingress/egress driveways to the site from Delta Avenue. The southerly driveway
provides at-grade site access and subterranean parking access at the east side of the
project. The northerly driveway from Delta Avenue provides ingress/egress directly to the
subterranean parking. Both driveways provide site access for emergency vehicles. The
proposed driveways will provide adequate ingress and egress for the police and fire
departments and other emergency equipment to enter the site in case of an emergency.
The proposed driveways will be required to meet City building standards prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The project does not pose any unique conditions that raise
concerns for emergency access, such as narrow, winding roads or dead-end streets. The
site plan was reviewed and approved by the City’s Traffic Consultant and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department to ensure that site access complies with all emergency access
standards. Based on site plan review by the City’s Traffic Consultant and Los Angeles
County Fire Department, the project will not have any significant emergency access impacts.
f) No Impact. The project proposes 146 parking spaces, including 48 residential spaces
and 98 commercial spaces for the commercial use. The total parking count also includes
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 82
spaces for handicap and delivery truck parking. The City parking code requires a total of
140 spaces, including handicap and delivery trucks. The project exceeds the number of City
required parking spaces. The project also proposes a total of 14 bicycle stalls in the
subterranean parking level to encourage the use of bicycles by project residents and the
commercial uses. As required by RMC 17.74.050 B.3., the proposed 14 bicycle stalls
represent 10% of the total project parking spaces. The project meets the parking
requirements of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The project will not have any parking
impacts.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) No Impact. The project will not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will be required to connect to
the same public wastewater treatment system that currently serves the site and will not
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 83
generate a quantity or quality of wastewater that will impact the wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will not impact
wastewater treatment requirements.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will consume more water and generate more
wastewater than the existing uses on the site due to more proposed development that the
existing uses on the property. The project is estimated to consume approximately 11,155
gallons of water per day and 10,971 gallons of wastewater per day as shown in Tables 20
and 21, respectively. The project water and wastewater needs can be accommodated by
the existing facilities and construction of new or expanded water or wastewater facilities will
not be required. The project will be required to install State mandated low flow water
fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The project will not
require the construction of any sewer or water lines and have any significantly
environmental impacts.
Table 20
Estimated Project Water Consumption
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Consumption Rate22 Consumption
Residential 46 units 160 gallons/day/unit 7,360 gallons/day
Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day
Total 11,155 gallons/day
Table 21
Estimated Project Wastewater Generation
Use Units/Sq. Ft. Generation Rate23 Generation
Residential 46 units 156 gallons/day/unit 7,176 gallons/day
Retail 11,860 sq. ft. 320 gallons/day/1,000 sq. ft. 3,795 gallons/day
Total 10,971 gallons/day
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.8 “a”, the project will not
generate more storm water runoff than the existing storm drain facilities can handle. The
project will not be required to construct any new off-site storm drain or surface water
collection facilities. The first ¾ of an inch of rainfall of any rainfall event will be retained and
discharged to a planter in the landscaping along the southern project boundary. The planter
area will treat the first ¾ inch of rainfall and allow percolation into the local groundwater.
The project will be required to retain on-site all increased surface water due to the project
with no increase in the amount of water generated from the site. Therefore, the project will
not require the construction of any storm water facilities and have a less-than-significant
impact to storm drain facilities.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water will be consumed by the retail stores, project
residents and landscape irrigation. The installation of State required low flow water fixtures
in the retail stores and residences will reduce the quantity of water that is consumed on-site.
The project will not have a significant impact on the local water supply or require new or
expanded water supplies.
22 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering. 23 County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 15, Service Charge Loadings, July 1, 2014-June 30, 2014.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 84
e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project will generate more wastewater to
the local sewer collection system than the current on-site uses. The project site is currently
served by an 8-inch sewer line in Garvey Avenue and the sewer line has capacity to serve
the proposed project. The project will be required to install State mandated low-flow water
fixtures to minimize water consumption and wastewater generation. The Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County has capacity to collect and treat the wastewater generated by the
project without the need to install large sewer lines or expand the capacity of the existing
wastewater treatment plant. The project is not anticipated to significantly impact the
capacity of the local wastewater treatment plant with the implementation of the following
mitigation measure to reduce wastewater impacts to less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure No. 16 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first
residential unit or leasing the first retail space, the project
developer shall install all State mandated low-flow water
fixtures.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate more solid waste from the site
than the current uses due to an increase in the amount of proposed development. The solid
waste from the project will be hauled to the Puente Hills Landfill. Solid waste collection will
be required to conform to RMC 17.74.050 B.7 in terms of collection hours, trash enclosures,
screening, etc. The project is not anticipated to have any significant solid waste impacts.
g) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste regulations and have
no solid waste regulation impact.
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
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?
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 85
3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.4, the project will not have any impacts to special
status species, stream habitat, and wildlife dispersal and migration because no rare or
endangered plant or animals exist on the site. The project will not affect the local, regional,
or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and will not threaten any
plant communities because no native plants or animals exist on the property. As discussed
in Section 3.5, the project will not eliminate any examples of California history or prehistory
or substantially impact historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources since none of
these resources either exist or are suspected to exist on the site. The project will not have
any biological or cultural resource impacts.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that have the
potential to contribute to cumulative hydrology (surface water runoff), water quality, air
quality, noise, traffic, public service or public utility impacts due to the small scale of the
project. The project will not have any cumulative considerable impacts.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no aspects of the project that will cause or
expose people to environmental effects. The development of the project as proposed will
not cause or have the potential to cause any adverse effects either directly or indirectly on
human beings.
City of Rosemead Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Garvey Garden Plaza - Design Review 14-03
Page 86
4.0 REFERENCES
1. City of Rosemead General Plan, April 13, 2012
2. City of Rosemead Municipal Code
3. Giroux & Associates, Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, Garvey Garden
Plaza, City of Rosemead, California, October 31, 2014.
4. Giroux & Associates, Noise Impact Analysis, Garvey Garden Plaza, City of
Rosemead, California, December 3, 2014.
5. VA Consulting, Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed Use Development Traffic Impact
Analysis, City of Rosemead, California, February 2015.
6. Robin Environmental Management, Phase I Environmental Assessment Report,
8404-8416 Garvey Avenue and 2736-2748 Delta Avenue, Rosemead California,
April 24, 2012.
7. Pacific Geotech Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, 8408 Garvey
Avenue, Rosemead California, February 14, 2011.
8. Jong Chen Engineering, Preliminary Hydrology Report, Proposed Commercial
Building Garvey Garden Plaza at 8408 Garvey Avenue, October 4, 2014.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessment
AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES
GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
Giroux & Associates
1820 E. Garry Avenue #211
Santa Ana, Calif. 92705
Prepared for:
Phil Martin & Associates
Attn: Phil Martin
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 122
Tustin, CA 92780
Date:
October 31, 2014
Project No.: P14-051 A
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 2 -
ATMOSPHERIC SETTING
The climate of the Rosemead area, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the
strength and location of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the
moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are
characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on-
shore breezes, and comfortable humidifies. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that
create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local
atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and
industry attracted in part by the climate.
Rosemead is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los
Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland across the project site
during the daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives the western San Gabriel
Valley some of the worst air quality in all of California. The worst air quality, however, has
gradually been moving eastward. The area of heaviest ozone air pollution has gradually moved
eastward from Pasadena in the 1960’s to Glendora and even Upland/Ontario in the 1990’s.
Elevated smog levels nevertheless persist in the Rosemead area during the warmer months of the
year. Despite dramatic improvement in air quality in the local area throughout the last several
decades, the project site is expected to continue to experience some unhealthful air quality until
beyond 2020.
Temperatures in the project vicinity average 62 degrees Fahrenheit annually with summer
afternoons in the low 90’s and winter mornings in the low 40’s. Temperatures much above 100
or below 30 degrees occur infrequently only under unusual weather conditions and even then
these limits are not far exceeded.
In contrast to the slow annual variation of temperature, precipitation is highly variable
seasonally. Rainfall in the eastern portions of Los Angeles County averages 17 inches annually
and falls almost exclusively from late October to early April. Summers are very dry with
frequent periods of 4-5 months of no rain at all. Because much of the rainfall comes from the
fringes of mid-latitude storms, a shift in the storm track of a few hundred miles can mean the
difference between a very wet year and a year with drought conditions.
Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter because they control
both the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as their
regional trajectory. Local wind patterns show a fairly unidirectional daytime onshore flow from
the SW-W with a very weak offshore return flow from the NE that is strongest on winter nights
when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore winds during the day average 6-8 mph,
while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly westward at 1-3 mph. During the daytime,
any locally generated air emissions are thus transported eastward toward San Bernardino and
Cajon Pass without generating any localized air quality impacts.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 3 -
The drainage winds which move slowly across the area at night have some potential for localized
stagnation. Fortunately, these winds have their origin in the San Gabriel Mountains where
background pollution levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any
unhealthful impacts. The wind distribution is such that nominal project-related air quality
impacts occur more on a regional scale rather than in the immediate project area. One other
important wind condition occurs when a high pressure center forms over the western United
States with sinking air forced seaward through local canyons and mountain passes. The air
warms by compression and relative humidity’s drop dramatically. The dry, gusty winds from the
N-NE create dust nuisance potential around areas of soil disturbance such as construction sites
and sometimes create serious visibility and vehicle safety problems for vehicles on area
freeways.
In conjunction with the two dominant wind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of
horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that
control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. The summer on-shore flow is
capped by a massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air.
These marine/ subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local
mixing of emissions, but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the basin until it
escapes into the desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain slopes.
In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation
inversions are formed that trap low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near their source.
As background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the
combination of rising non-local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation
inversions creates micro-scale air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other
traffic concentrations. Because the incoming air draining off the mountains into the San Gabriel
Valley during nocturnal radiation inversion conditions is relatively clean, the summer subsidence
inversions are a far more critical factor in determining Rosemead area air quality than the winter
time local trapping inversions.
AIR QUALITY SETTING
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the Garvey Garden Plaza project,
those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the
applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered
safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are
designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as
asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness,
and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults
can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these
minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however,
that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to
adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 4 -
National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option
to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure
periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality
problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the
year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the
federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion
meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards.
Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health
effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2.
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects.
EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where
appropriate. EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per
day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national AAQS
were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants.
Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM-2.5 and for ozone (8-hour) were
challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt
national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health-based standards did not require
preparation of a cost-benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some
inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such
attainment-planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8-hour ozone standard.
EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of
communities to “non-attainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard.
Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter
prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide
PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in
2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment
planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress
towards attainment.
Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard
for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for
the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent
than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a
specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady
progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences
of non-attainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state
standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal
standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 5 -
Table 1
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 6 -
Table 1 (continued)
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 7 -
Table 2
Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) Incomplete combustion of fuels and other
carbon-containing substances, such as motor
exhaust.
Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
Reduced tolerance for exercise.
Impairment of mental function.
Impairment of fetal development.
Death at high levels of exposure.
Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) Motor vehicle exhaust.
High temperature stationary combustion.
Atmospheric reactions.
Aggravation of respiratory illness.
Reduced visibility.
Reduced plant growth.
Formation of acid rain.
Ozone
(O3) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases.
Irritation of eyes.
Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
Plant leaf injury.
Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil. Impairment of blood function and nerve
construction.
Behavioral and hearing problems in children.
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
Construction activities.
Industrial processes.
Atmospheric chemical reactions.
Reduced lung function.
Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
pollutants.
Aggravation of respiratory and cardio
respiratory diseases.
Increased cough and chest discomfort.
Soiling.
Reduced visibility.
Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-2.5)
Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
Residential and agricultural burning.
Industrial processes.
Also, formed from photochemical reactions
of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur
oxides, and organics.
Increases respiratory disease.
Lung damage.
Cancer and premature death.
Reduces visibility and results in surface
soiling.
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
Industrial processes.
Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
Reduced lung function.
Irritation of eyes.
Reduced visibility.
Plant injury.
Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 8 -
As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne
particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal
clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a
new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked,
and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the
federal annual standard for PM-2.5 was reduced from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3 which matches the
California AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non-attainment status for PM-2.5 may be increased
by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM-2.5 attainment.
In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air
standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour
standard. Draft standards were published. The anticipated future 8-hour standard was 0.065
ppm. Environmental organizations generally praised this proposal. Most manufacturing,
transportation or power generation groups opposed the new standard as economically unwise in
an uncertain fiscal climate. However, in response to legal proceedings initiated by various
environmental groups, EPA will likely adopt a more stringent 8-hour ozone standard by the end
of this year.
A new federal one-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was adopted in 2010. This standard
is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data
throughout Southern California, the basin was designated as “attainment” for the national one-
hour standard.
BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Long-term air quality monitoring is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) at various monitoring stations. There are no nearby stations that monitor
the full spectrum of pollutants. Ozone, carbon monoxide, PM-2.5 and nitrogen oxides are
monitored at the Pico Rivera facility, while 10-micron diameter particulate matter (PM-10) is
measured at the Azusa station. Table 3 summarizes the last five years of monitoring data from a
composite of these data resources. The following conclusions can be drawn from this data:
a. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels occasionally exceed standards. The 8-hour state
ozone standard as well as the 1-hour state standard has been exceeded on approximately
one percent of all days in the past five years. The 8-hour federal standard has been
exceeded four times for the same period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much
lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity
is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to
continue to slowly decline during the current decade
b. Measurements of carbon monoxide have shown very low baseline levels in comparison to
the most stringent one- and eight-hour standards.
c. Respirable dust (PM-10) levels exceed the state standard on approximately 11 percent of
measurement days, but the less stringent federal PM-10 standard has not been violated
once for the same period. Year to year fluctuations of overall maximum 24-hour PM-10
levels seem to follow no discernable trend, though 2011 had the lowest maximum 24-
hour concentration in recent history.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 9 -
d. A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable
of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Year 2010 and 2013 showed the fewest
violations in recent years. Both the frequency of violations of particulate standards, as
well as high percentage of PM-2.5, is occasional air quality concerns in the project area.
Less than one percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard of 35
g/m3 from 2009-2013.
Table 3
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2009-2013)*
Pollutant/Standard 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 8 1 1 5 2
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 6 1 1 6 3
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 3 1 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.101
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07
Carbon Monoxide
1-Hour > 20. ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
1-Hour > 9. ppm (S, F) 0 0 0 0 0
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.5 2.3 2.7 xx xx
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.0
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-Hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 7/52 5/55 8/61 6/61 6/61
24-Hour > 150 g/m3 (F) 0/52 0/55 0/61 0/61 0/61
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 72. 68. 63. 78. 76.
Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 2/118 0/117 1/114 1/119 0/114
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 71.0 34.9 41.2 45.3 29.1
*Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and Maximum Levels During Such Violations,
Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken
xx data not available
S=State Standard
F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Pico Rivera Air Monitoring Station for Ozone, CO, NOx and PM-2.5, Azusa Monitoring
Station for PM-10
data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 10 -
Although complete attainment of every clean air standard is not yet imminent, extrapolation of
the steady improvement trend suggests that such attainment could occur within the reasonably
near future.
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of
the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps
that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet
the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the
agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment
forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.
The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with
“serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The
most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and
for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial
reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next
several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5
are forecast to slightly increase.
Table 4
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day)
Pollutant 2010a 2015b 2020b 2025b
NOx 603 451 357 289
VOC 544 429 400 393
PM-10 160 155 161 165
PM-2.5 71 67 67 68
a2010 Base Year. bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality
The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in
August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in
2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based
standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based
upon the federal one-hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 11 -
hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality
planning cycle was initiated.
With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new
attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard
attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. As previously noted, the attainment date was to
“slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately
meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard.
Because projected attainment by 2021 requires control technologies that do not exist yet, the
SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme
non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation will allow a longer time period
for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified
deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose
sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA
approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This
reclassification sets a later attainment deadline (2024), but also requires the air basin to adopt
even more stringent emissions controls.
In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA has disapproved part of the SCAB PM-2.5
attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA has stated that the current attainment plan relies on
PM-2.5 control regulations that have not yet been approved or implemented. It is expected that a
number of rules that are pending approval will remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues
are not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation
projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the ARB submittal to EPA as part of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) is expected to remedy identified PM-2.5 planning
deficiencies.
The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment
plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that
standard was revoked around eight years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the
one-hour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now
forced to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard.
Because the 2012 AQMP contains a number of control measures for the 8-hour ozone standard
that are equally effective for one-hour levels, the 2012 AQMP is believed to satisfy hourly
attainment planning requirements.
The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality
programs or regulations governing mixed use projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts
and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick
by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while
acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor
designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed development is
consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed
project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 12 -
AIR QUALITY IMPACT
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated
where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of
standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or
nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.
Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality
impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
a. Conflicts with or obstructs implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b. Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
c. Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors).
d. Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
e. Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Primary Pollutants
Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of
emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those
pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide
(CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated
directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where
they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be
considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also
primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB)
for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project
construction.
Secondary Pollutants
Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more
unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental
regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through
complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 13 -
upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to
translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact.
Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has
designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact
significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions
that exceed any of the following emission thresholds shown in Table 5 are recommended by the
SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.
Table 5
Daily Emissions Thresholds
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.
Additional Indicators
In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as
screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The
additional indicators are as follows:
Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality
standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality
violation
Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which
would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for
the project’s build-out year.
Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook also identifies various secondary significance criteria related to
toxic, hazardous or odorous air contaminants. Except for the small diameter particulate matter
(“PM-2.5”) fraction of diesel exhaust generated by heavy construction equipment and project-
related diesel truck traffic, there are no secondary impact indicators associated with project
construction or operations.
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 14 -
For PM-2.5 exhaust emissions, recently adopted policies require the gradual conversion of
delivery fleets to diesel alternatives, or the use of “clean” diesel if their emissions are
demonstrated to be as low as those from alternative fuels. Because health risks from toxic air
contaminants (TAC’s) are cumulative over an assumed 70-year lifespan, measurable off-site
public health risk from diesel TAC exposure would occur for only a brief portion of a project
lifetime, and only in dilute quantity.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Air quality impacts are analyzed relative to those persons with the greatest sensitivity to air
pollution exposure. Such persons are called “sensitive receptors.” Sensitive population groups
include young children, the elderly and the acutely and chronically ill (especially those with
cardio-respiratory disease). Residential areas adjacent to a proposed site are considered to be
sensitive to air pollution exposure because they may be occupied for extended periods, and
residents may be outdoors when exposure is highest. The residential uses along the southern
project perimeter would be considered the closest sensitive receptors.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS
Dust is typically the primary concern during construction of new buildings. Because such
emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are
called "fugitive emissions.” Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil
moisture, wind speed, area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation,
etc.). These parameters are not known with any reasonable certainty prior to project
development and may change from day to day. Any assignment of specific parameters to an
unknown future date is speculative and conjectural.
Because of the inherent uncertainty in the predictive factors for estimating fugitive dust
generation, regulatory agencies typically use one universal "default" factor based on the area
disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into
midrange average values. This assumption may or may not be totally applicable to site-specific
conditions on the proposed project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for project-
specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a considerable degree of imprecision.
Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are shown estimated to
be about 10 pounds per acre. This estimate presumes the use of reasonably available control
measures (RACMs). The SCAQMD requires the use of best available control measures
(BACMs) for fugitive dust from construction activities.
Current research in particulate-exposure health suggests that the most adverse effects derive from
ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as
sulfates, nitrates or organic material. A national clean air standard for particulate matter of
2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2.5") was adopted in 1997. A limited amount of
construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. PM-2.5 emissions are estimated
to comprise 10-20 percent of PM-10.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 15 -
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate both
construction emissions and operational emissions from a variety of land use projects. It
calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as
total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site heavy equipment, the exact types
and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be
quantified with certainty. Estimated construction emissions were modeled using
CalEEMod2013.2.2 to identify maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during project
construction. Construction emissions include all emissions associated with the construction
equipment, worker trips, and supply truck deliveries.
The proposed development, consisting of 46 dwelling units, 5,730 square feet of commercial
retail space, 6,130 square feet of office use and a 146 space parking lot was modeled in
CalEEMod2013.2.2. The modeled prototype construction equipment fleet and schedule is
indicated in Table 6 and based on CalEEMod defaults for a project of this size with an extended
grading duration to account for the amount of on-site earth movement which will be balanced on
site.
Table 6
Construction Activity Equipment Fleet
Phase Name and Duration Equipment
Demolition (20 days)
1 Concrete Saw
1 Dozer
3 Loader/Backhoes
Site Prep (3 days)
1 Grader
1 Scraper
1 Loader/Backhoe
Grading (6 days)
1 Grader
1 Dozer
2 Loader/Backhoes
Construction (220 days)
1 Crane
3 Forklifts
1 Generator Set
1 Welder
3 Loader/Backhoes
Paving
(10 days)
1 Concrete Mixer
1 Paver
1 Paving Equipment
2 Rollers
1 Loader/Backhoe
Utilizing this indicated equipment fleet shown in Table 6 the following worst case daily
construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 7.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 16 -
Table 7
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction Emissions ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
2016
Unmitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 8.4 5.0
Mitigated 17.3 32.5 23.4 0.0 4.4 3.0
2017
Unmitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
Mitigated 17.3 2.4 2.7 0.0 0.3 0.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Peak daily construction activity emissions are estimated to be well below SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds without the need for added mitigation. The only model-based mitigation measured
applied for this project was watering exposed dirt surfaces at least three times per day to
minimize the generation of fugitive dust generation during grading.
Construction equipment exhaust contains carcinogenic compounds within the diesel exhaust
particulates. The toxicity of diesel exhaust is evaluated relative to a 24-hour per day, 365 days
per year, 70-year lifetime exposure. The SCAQMD does not generally require the analysis of
construction-related diesel emissions relative to health risk due to the short period for which the
majority of diesel exhaust would occur. Health risk analyses are typically assessed over a 9-, 30-,
or 70-year timeframe and not over a relatively brief construction period due to the lack of health
risk associated with such a brief exposure.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The project would generate 619 daily trips using trip generation numbers provided by the project
traffic consultant. Operational emissions were calculated using CalEEMod2013.2.2 for an
assumed project build-out year of 2017 as a target for full occupancy. The operational impacts
are shown in Table 8. As shown, operational emissions will not exceed applicable SCAQMD
operational emissions CEQA thresholds of significance.
Table 8
Daily Operational Impacts
Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 CO2
Area 2.7* 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 889.1
Energy 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.9
Mobile 2.2 5.8 24.0 0.1 3.7 1.1 4823.1
Total 4.9 5.9 30.0 0.1 3.8 1.1 5,885.1
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 -
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No NA
Source: CalEEMod2013.2.2 Output in Appendix
*assumes use of natural gas heaths for residential use
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 17 -
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level
in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis
elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in
response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST
methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s
Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.
Use of an LST analysis for a project is optional. For the proposed project, the primary source of
possible LST impact would be during construction. LSTs are applicable for a sensitive receptor
where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours such as a residence, hospital or
convalescent facility.
LST screening tables are available for 25, 50, 100, 200 and 500 meter source-receptor distances.
For this project the nearest sensitive use is the adjacent residences and therefore a 25 meter
distance was selected for analysis.
LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5). LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based
on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the
nearest sensitive receptor.
The SCAQMD has issued guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs. LST pollutant screening
level concentration data is currently published for 1, 2 and 5 acre sites for varying distances.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and
the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, the following
Table 9 is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed-acreage for comparison to LSTs.
Table 9
Maximum Daily Disturbed Acreage per Equipment Type
Equipment Type Acres/8-hr-day
Crawler Tractor 0.5
Graders 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5
Scrapers 1
Based on this table, the proposed project will result in 1.5 disturbed daily acres during peak
construction grading activity:
(1 grader x 0.5 +1 scraper x 1= 1.5 acres disturbed).
The following thresholds and emissions in Table 10 are therefore determined (pounds per day):
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 18 -
Table 10
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1.5 acres/25 meters
South San Gabriel Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
Max On-Site Emissions * 852 102 6 5
Demolition
Unmitigated 22 30 2 2
Mitigated 22 30 2 2
Site Prep
Unmitigated 19 32 3 2
Mitigated 19 32 2 2
Grading
Unmitigated 21 31 8 5
Mitigated 20 31 4 3
Construction
Unmitigated 17 26 2 2
Mitigated 17 26 2 2
Paving
Unmitigated 12 20 1 1
Mitigated 12 20 1 1
CalEEMod Output in Appendix *interpolated between a 1 and 2 acre site
LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen in Table 10, with
active dust suppression, mitigated emissions meet the LST for construction thresholds. LST
impacts are less-than-significant.
Therefore, the following construction mitigation measure is necessary to ensure LST thresholds
are maintained below significance thresholds:
Exposed surfaces will be watered at least three times per day during grading activities
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MITIGATION
Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA
thresholds. Nevertheless, mitigation through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for
use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin and proximity of adjacent residential
uses. Recommended mitigation includes:
Fugitive Dust Control
Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
Prepare a high wind dust control plan.
Address previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 19 -
Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site
(typically 3 times/day).
Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed.
Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials.
Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site
Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD
CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the
use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion
emissions control includes:
Exhaust Emissions Control
Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment.
Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth)
emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as
“global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the
earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to
outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The
principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water
vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of
Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the
transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the
single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions
globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders
regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368,
EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07.
AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has
adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 20 -
and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have
wide-ranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on
other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging
mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it
must be implemented. Major components of the AB 32 include:
Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or
categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions.
Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG
sources.
Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as
usual, to be achieved by 2020.
Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality
standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants.
Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.
Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from
greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally,
through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve),
general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been
developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect
sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and
off-road mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity
generation and non-company owned mobile sources.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for
the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part
of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March, 2010. The CEQA Appendix G
guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have
a potentially significant impact if it:
Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment, or,
Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.
Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated.
The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, making a
determination of significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are
found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the
lead agency with substantial flexibility.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 21 -
Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.
CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most
appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions
quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing
analysis.
The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of
significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively
considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If
the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on
thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.
On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG
Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g.,
stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2
equivalent/year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended
a threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e for mixed use projects. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has
been used as a guideline for this analysis. In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold of
significance, project related GHG emissions in excess of the guideline level are presumed to
trigger a requirement for enhanced GHG reduction at the project level.
PROJECT RELATED GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The build-out timetable for this project is assumed to be approximately two years. During project
construction, the CalEEMod2013.2.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities
will generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table 11.
Table 11
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e)
CO2e
Year 2015 388.8
Year 2016 7.2
Total 396.0
Amortized 13.2
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a
30-year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are
considered individually less-than-significant.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 22 -
Project Operational GHG Emissions
The input assumptions for operational GHG emissions calculations, and the GHG conversion
from consumption to annual regional CO2(e) emissions are summarized in the
CalEEMod2013.2.2 output files found in the appendix of this report.
The total operational and annualized construction emissions are identified in Table 12.
Table 12
Operational Emissions
Consumption Source MT CO2(e) tons/year
Area Sources* 10.8
Energy Utilization 140.7
Mobile Source 721.5
Solid Waste Generation 15.0
Water Consumption 31.5
Annualized Construction 13.2
Total 932.7
Guideline Threshold 3,000
*assumes natural gas hearths for residential use
This total is below the guideline threshold of 3,000 MTY CO2e for mixed use projects suggested
by the SCAQMD.
CONSISTENCY WITH GHG PLANS, PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
The City of Rosemead has not yet developed a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The City has
not adopted regulations for the purpose of reducing GHGs applicable to this project. The
applicable GHG planning document is AB-32. As discussed above, the project is not expected to
result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. As a result, the project results in GHG
emissions below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 ton threshold. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Air Quality Report
- 23 -
APPENDIX
CALEEMOD2013.2.2 COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT
South Coast Air Basin, Annual
Garvey Garden Plaza
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 6.13 1000sqft 0.14 6,130.00 0
Parking Lot 146.00 Space 1.31 58,400.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 46.00 Dwelling Unit 1.21 46,000.00 132
Strip Mall 5.73 1000sqft 0.13 5,730.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2016Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 1 of 33
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Demo: 20 days, Prep: 3 days, Grading: 6 days, Construction: 220 days, Paving: 10 days
Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 2 forklifts, 1 gen set, 1 loader/backhoe, 3 welders
Off-road Equipment - Demo: 1 concrete saw, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes
Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 grader, 1 dozer, 2 loader/backhoes
Off-road Equipment - Paving: 1 cement mixer, 1 paver, 1 paving equipment, 2 rollers, 1 loader/backhoe
Demolition - 9500 sf demo
Vehicle Trips - trip gen per traffic report
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - natural gas hearth
Off-road Equipment - Prep: 1 grader, 1 scraper, 1 loader/backhoe
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.65
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 42.70
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 6.65
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 11.03
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 42.70
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 2 of 33
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2015 0.5647 3.6164 2.9459 4.5100e-
003
0.1144 0.2301 0.3445 0.0346 0.2195 0.2541 0.0000 387.2692 387.2692 0.0720 0.0000 388.7809
2016 0.3287 0.0464 0.0498 9.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
3.7600e-
003
6.2600e-
003
6.6000e-
004
3.7600e-
003
4.4200e-
003
0.0000 7.1948 7.1948 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 7.2095
Total 0.8934 3.6628 2.9956 4.6000e-
003
0.1169 0.2339 0.3507 0.0352 0.2233 0.2585 0.0000 394.4639 394.4639 0.0727 0.0000 395.9903
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2015 0.5647 3.6164 2.9459 4.5100e-
003
0.0981 0.2301 0.3282 0.0278 0.2195 0.2473 0.0000 387.2688 387.2688 0.0720 0.0000 388.7805
2016 0.3287 0.0464 0.0498 9.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
3.7600e-
003
6.2600e-
003
6.6000e-
004
3.7600e-
003
4.4200e-
003
0.0000 7.1948 7.1948 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 7.2094
Total 0.8934 3.6628 2.9956 4.6000e-
003
0.1006 0.2339 0.3344 0.0285 0.2233 0.2518 0.0000 394.4636 394.4636 0.0727 0.0000 395.9900
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.95 0.00 4.65 19.17 0.00 2.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 3 of 33
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.6199 9.4700e-
003
0.7721 4.9000e-
004
0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 4.8861 10.1682 15.0543 0.0154 3.3000e-
004
15.4799
Energy 2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.6000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 140.1427 140.1427 5.6800e-
003
1.5800e-
003
140.7530
Mobile 0.3711 1.0535 4.1142 9.0400e-
003
0.6168 0.0140 0.6308 0.1650 0.0128 0.1779 0.0000 720.8822 720.8822 0.0300 0.0000 721.5113
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4311 25.7662 27.1973 0.1482 3.7200e-
003
31.4610
Total 0.9939 1.0877 4.8984 9.6900e-
003
0.6168 0.0625 0.6793 0.1650 0.0614 0.2264 12.9916 896.9593 909.9509 0.5936 5.6300e-
003
924.1627
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 4 of 33
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.4702 5.6500e-
003
0.4831 3.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
003
3.3000e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
0.0000 10.7205 10.7205 9.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
10.7978
Energy 2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.6000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 140.1427 140.1427 5.6800e-
003
1.5800e-
003
140.7530
Mobile 0.3711 1.0535 4.1142 9.0400e-
003
0.6168 0.0140 0.6308 0.1650 0.0128 0.1779 0.0000 720.8822 720.8822 0.0300 0.0000 721.5113
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.6743 0.0000 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4311 25.7662 27.1973 0.1482 3.7100e-
003
31.4587
Total 0.8442 1.0839 4.6094 9.2300e-
003
0.6168 0.0193 0.6361 0.1650 0.0181 0.1832 8.1055 897.5116 905.6171 0.5792 5.4700e-
003
919.4784
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
15.06 0.35 5.90 4.75 0.00 69.18 6.36 0.00 70.46 19.10 37.61 -0.06 0.48 2.43 2.84 0.51
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 5 of 33
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/28/2015 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2015 2/2/2015 5 3
3 Grading Grading 2/3/2015 2/10/2015 5 6
4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/11/2015 12/15/2015 5 220
5 Paving Paving 12/16/2015 12/29/2015 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/30/2015 2/23/2016 5 40
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 93,150; Residential Outdoor: 31,050; Non-Residential Indoor: 20,418; Non-Residential Outdoor: 6,806 (Architectural
Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 6 of 33
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 7 of 33
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 4.6800e-
003
0.0000 4.6800e-
003
7.1000e-
004
0.0000 7.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e-
004
0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e-
003
0.0000 22.8829
Total 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e-
004
4.6800e-
003
0.0187 0.0233 7.1000e-
004
0.0175 0.0182 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e-
003
0.0000 22.8829
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 43.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 61.00 16.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 12.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 8 of 33
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.4000e-
004
7.1100e-
003
5.0500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.4661 1.4661 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4664
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3841 1.3841 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3857
Total 1.0200e-
003
7.9600e-
003
0.0139 4.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
1.9200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8502 2.8502 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8521
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.8200e-
003
0.0000 1.8200e-
003
2.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e-
004
0.0187 0.0187 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e-
003
0.0000 22.8829
Total 0.0307 0.2968 0.2206 2.4000e-
004
1.8200e-
003
0.0187 0.0205 2.8000e-
004
0.0175 0.0178 0.0000 22.7618 22.7618 5.7700e-
003
0.0000 22.8829
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 9 of 33
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.4000e-
004
7.1100e-
003
5.0500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.4661 1.4661 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.4664
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.8000e-
004
8.5000e-
004
8.8200e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.4300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3841 1.3841 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3857
Total 1.0200e-
003
7.9600e-
003
0.0139 4.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
1.9200e-
003
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8502 2.8502 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.8521
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 2.3900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.2300e-
003
0.0487 0.0280 4.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
2.4000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
0.0000 3.4131 3.4131 1.0200e-
003
0.0000 3.4345
Total 4.2300e-
003
0.0487 0.0280 4.0000e-
005
2.3900e-
003
2.4000e-
003
4.7900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
2.2000e-
003
2.4600e-
003
0.0000 3.4131 3.4131 1.0200e-
003
0.0000 3.4345
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 10 of 33
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Total 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.3000e-
004
0.0000 9.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.2300e-
003
0.0487 0.0280 4.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
003
2.4000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
0.0000 3.4131 3.4131 1.0200e-
003
0.0000 3.4345
Total 4.2300e-
003
0.0487 0.0280 4.0000e-
005
9.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
003
3.3300e-
003
1.0000e-
004
2.2000e-
003
2.3000e-
003
0.0000 3.4131 3.4131 1.0200e-
003
0.0000 3.4345
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 11 of 33
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Total 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 8.9000e-
003
0.0938 0.0606 6.0000e-
005
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
4.8400e-
003
4.8400e-
003
0.0000 5.8897 5.8897 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.9266
Total 8.9000e-
003
0.0938 0.0606 6.0000e-
005
0.0197 5.2600e-
003
0.0249 0.0101 4.8400e-
003
0.0149 0.0000 5.8897 5.8897 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.9266
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 12 of 33
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3194 0.3194 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3198
Total 1.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3194 0.3194 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3198
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 7.6700e-
003
0.0000 7.6700e-
003
3.9400e-
003
0.0000 3.9400e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 8.9000e-
003
0.0938 0.0606 6.0000e-
005
5.2600e-
003
5.2600e-
003
4.8400e-
003
4.8400e-
003
0.0000 5.8897 5.8897 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.9266
Total 8.9000e-
003
0.0938 0.0606 6.0000e-
005
7.6700e-
003
5.2600e-
003
0.0129 3.9400e-
003
4.8400e-
003
8.7800e-
003
0.0000 5.8897 5.8897 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.9266
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 13 of 33
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3194 0.3194 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3198
Total 1.3000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0300e-
003
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.3000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3194 0.3194 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3198
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4430 2.8423 1.8751 2.7400e-
003
0.1936 0.1936 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 235.9123 235.9123 0.0565 0.0000 237.0988
Total 0.4430 2.8423 1.8751 2.7400e-
003
0.1936 0.1936 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 235.9123 235.9123 0.0565 0.0000 237.0988
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 14 of 33
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0177 0.1809 0.2207 3.8000e-
004
0.0108 3.0100e-
003
0.0138 3.0900e-
003
2.7600e-
003
5.8500e-
003
0.0000 35.1022 35.1022 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 35.1081
Worker 0.0299 0.0438 0.4551 9.1000e-
004
0.0736 6.6000e-
004
0.0743 0.0196 6.1000e-
004
0.0202 0.0000 71.4408 71.4408 4.0300e-
003
0.0000 71.5255
Total 0.0476 0.2247 0.6757 1.2900e-
003
0.0845 3.6700e-
003
0.0881 0.0226 3.3700e-
003
0.0260 0.0000 106.5430 106.5430 4.3100e-
003
0.0000 106.6336
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4430 2.8423 1.8751 2.7400e-
003
0.1936 0.1936 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 235.9120 235.9120 0.0565 0.0000 237.0985
Total 0.4430 2.8423 1.8751 2.7400e-
003
0.1936 0.1936 0.1856 0.1856 0.0000 235.9120 235.9120 0.0565 0.0000 237.0985
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 15 of 33
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0177 0.1809 0.2207 3.8000e-
004
0.0108 3.0100e-
003
0.0138 3.0900e-
003
2.7600e-
003
5.8500e-
003
0.0000 35.1022 35.1022 2.8000e-
004
0.0000 35.1081
Worker 0.0299 0.0438 0.4551 9.1000e-
004
0.0736 6.6000e-
004
0.0743 0.0196 6.1000e-
004
0.0202 0.0000 71.4408 71.4408 4.0300e-
003
0.0000 71.5255
Total 0.0476 0.2247 0.6757 1.2900e-
003
0.0845 3.6700e-
003
0.0881 0.0226 3.3700e-
003
0.0260 0.0000 106.5430 106.5430 4.3100e-
003
0.0000 106.6336
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.7200e-
003
0.0988 0.0613 9.0000e-
005
6.2100e-
003
6.2100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
0.0000 8.2702 8.2702 2.4200e-
003
0.0000 8.3212
Paving 1.7200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0114 0.0988 0.0613 9.0000e-
005
6.2100e-
003
6.2100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
0.0000 8.2702 8.2702 2.4200e-
003
0.0000 8.3212
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 16 of 33
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.3000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.7985 0.7985 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7995
Total 3.3000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.7985 0.7985 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7995
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.7200e-
003
0.0988 0.0613 9.0000e-
005
6.2100e-
003
6.2100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
0.0000 8.2702 8.2702 2.4200e-
003
0.0000 8.3211
Paving 1.7200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0114 0.0988 0.0613 9.0000e-
005
6.2100e-
003
6.2100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
5.7200e-
003
0.0000 8.2702 8.2702 2.4200e-
003
0.0000 8.3211
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 17 of 33
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.3000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.7985 0.7985 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7995
Total 3.3000e-
004
4.9000e-
004
5.0900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.3000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.7985 0.7985 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7995
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0169 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1000e-
004
2.5700e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2560
Total 0.0173 2.5700e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2560
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 18 of 33
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Total 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0169 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.1000e-
004
2.5700e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2560
Total 0.0173 2.5700e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.0000 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.2553 0.2553 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2560
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 19 of 33
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Total 5.0000e-
005
8.0000e-
005
8.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1278 0.1278 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1279
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3207 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.0000e-
003
0.0451 0.0358 6.0000e-
005
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.8512 4.8512 5.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8632
Total 0.3277 0.0451 0.0358 6.0000e-
005
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.8512 4.8512 5.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8632
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 20 of 33
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.1000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0140 3.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3436 2.3436 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3463
Total 9.1000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0140 3.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3436 2.3436 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3463
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3207 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.0000e-
003
0.0451 0.0358 6.0000e-
005
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.8512 4.8512 5.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8632
Total 0.3277 0.0451 0.0358 6.0000e-
005
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
3.7400e-
003
0.0000 4.8512 4.8512 5.7000e-
004
0.0000 4.8632
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 21 of 33
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3711 1.0535 4.1142 9.0400e-
003
0.6168 0.0140 0.6308 0.1650 0.0128 0.1779 0.0000 720.8822 720.8822 0.0300 0.0000 721.5113
Unmitigated 0.3711 1.0535 4.1142 9.0400e-
003
0.6168 0.0140 0.6308 0.1650 0.0128 0.1779 0.0000 720.8822 720.8822 0.0300 0.0000 721.5113
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.1000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0140 3.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3436 2.3436 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3463
Total 9.1000e-
004
1.3400e-
003
0.0140 3.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.6000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3436 2.3436 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.3463
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 22 of 33
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 305.90 305.90 279.22 1,032,283 1,032,283
General Office Building 67.61 14.53 6.01 165,033 165,033
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 244.67 244.67 117.06 430,826 430,826
Total 618.18 565.10 402.29 1,628,142 1,628,142
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.514315 0.060290 0.180146 0.139458 0.042007 0.006636 0.015782 0.029894 0.001929 0.002512 0.004343 0.000595 0.002093
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 23 of 33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 111.6953 111.6953 5.1300e-
003
1.0600e-
003
112.1324
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 111.6953 111.6953 5.1300e-
003
1.0600e-
003
112.1324
NaturalGas
Mitigated
2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.6000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 28.4475 28.4475 5.5000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
28.6206
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.6000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 28.4475 28.4475 5.5000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
28.6206
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
456343 2.4600e-
003
0.0210 8.9500e-
003
1.3000e-
004
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
0.0000 24.3522 24.3522 4.7000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
24.5004
General Office
Building
67000.9 3.6000e-
004
3.2800e-
003
2.7600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 3.5754 3.5754 7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
3.5972
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 9741 5.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5198 0.5198 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.5230
Total 2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.5000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 28.4475 28.4475 5.5000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
28.6206
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 24 of 33
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
67000.9 3.6000e-
004
3.2800e-
003
2.7600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0000 3.5754 3.5754 7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
3.5972
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 9741 5.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5198 0.5198 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.5230
Apartments Mid
Rise
456343 2.4600e-
003
0.0210 8.9500e-
003
1.3000e-
004
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
1.7000e-
003
0.0000 24.3522 24.3522 4.7000e-
004
4.5000e-
004
24.5004
Total 2.8700e-
003
0.0248 0.0121 1.5000e-
004
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
1.9900e-
003
0.0000 28.4475 28.4475 5.5000e-
004
5.3000e-
004
28.6206
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 25 of 33
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
162930 46.6252 2.1400e-
003
4.4000e-
004
46.8077
General Office
Building
89068.9 25.4886 1.1700e-
003
2.4000e-
004
25.5883
Parking Lot 51392 14.7067 6.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
14.7642
Strip Mall 86924.1 24.8748 1.1400e-
003
2.4000e-
004
24.9722
Total 111.6953 5.1300e-
003
1.0600e-
003
112.1324
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 26 of 33
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
162930 46.6252 2.1400e-
003
4.4000e-
004
46.8077
General Office
Building
89068.9 25.4886 1.1700e-
003
2.4000e-
004
25.5883
Parking Lot 51392 14.7067 6.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
14.7642
Strip Mall 86924.1 24.8748 1.1400e-
003
2.4000e-
004
24.9722
Total 111.6953 5.1300e-
003
1.0600e-
003
112.1324
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 27 of 33
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4702 5.6500e-
003
0.4831 3.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
003
3.3000e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
0.0000 10.7205 10.7205 9.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
10.7978
Unmitigated 0.6199 9.4700e-
003
0.7721 4.9000e-
004
0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 4.8861 10.1682 15.0543 0.0154 3.3000e-
004
15.4799
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4201 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.1507 3.8200e-
003
0.2890 4.6000e-
004
0.0439 0.0439 0.0439 0.0439 4.8861 9.3894 14.2754 0.0146 3.3000e-
004
14.6842
Landscaping 0.0154 5.6500e-
003
0.4831 3.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
0.0000 0.7788 0.7788 8.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.7956
Total 0.6199 9.4700e-
003
0.7721 4.9000e-
004
0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 4.8861 10.1682 15.0543 0.0154 3.3000e-
004
15.4799
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 28 of 33
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 27.1973 0.1482 3.7100e-
003
31.4587
Unmitigated 27.1973 0.1482 3.7200e-
003
31.4610
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0338 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.4201 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.0000e-
003
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
6.9000e-
004
6.9000e-
004
6.9000e-
004
0.0000 9.9417 9.9417 1.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
10.0022
Landscaping 0.0154 5.6500e-
003
0.4831 3.0000e-
005
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
2.6000e-
003
0.0000 0.7788 0.7788 8.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.7956
Total 0.4702 5.6500e-
003
0.4831 3.0000e-
005
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
3.2900e-
003
0.0000 10.7205 10.7205 9.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
10.7978
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 29 of 33
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.99709 /
1.88947
18.1257 0.0985 2.4700e-
003
20.9587
General Office
Building
1.08951 /
0.667763
6.5284 0.0358 9.0000e-
004
7.5580
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.424436 /
0.260138
2.5432 0.0139 3.5000e-
004
2.9443
Total 27.1973 0.1482 3.7200e-
003
31.4610
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 30 of 33
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.99709 /
1.88947
18.1257 0.0984 2.4700e-
003
20.9571
General Office
Building
1.08951 /
0.667763
6.5284 0.0358 9.0000e-
004
7.5574
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.424436 /
0.260138
2.5432 0.0139 3.5000e-
004
2.9441
Total 27.1973 0.1482 3.7200e-
003
31.4587
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 31 of 33
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Unmitigated 6.6743 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.16 4.2953 0.2538 0.0000 9.6260
General Office
Building
5.7 1.1571 0.0684 0.0000 2.5930
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 6.02 1.2220 0.0722 0.0000 2.7386
Total 6.6744 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 32 of 33
10.0 Vegetation
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.16 4.2953 0.2538 0.0000 9.6260
General Office
Building
5.7 1.1571 0.0684 0.0000 2.5930
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 6.02 1.2220 0.0722 0.0000 2.7386
Total 6.6744 0.3944 0.0000 14.9576
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:40 PMPage 33 of 33
South Coast Air Basin, Summer
Garvey Garden Plaza
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
General Office Building 6.13 1000sqft 0.14 6,130.00 0
Parking Lot 146.00 Space 1.31 58,400.00 0
Apartments Mid Rise 46.00 Dwelling Unit 1.21 46,000.00 132
Strip Mall 5.73 1000sqft 0.13 5,730.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2016Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
630.89 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 1 of 26
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - Demo: 20 days, Prep: 3 days, Grading: 6 days, Construction: 220 days, Paving: 10 days
Off-road Equipment - Construction: 1 crane, 2 forklifts, 1 gen set, 1 loader/backhoe, 3 welders
Off-road Equipment - Demo: 1 concrete saw, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes
Off-road Equipment - Grading: 1 grader, 1 dozer, 2 loader/backhoes
Off-road Equipment - Paving: 1 cement mixer, 1 paver, 1 paving equipment, 2 rollers, 1 loader/backhoe
Demolition - 9500 sf demo
Vehicle Trips - trip gen per traffic report
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - natural gas hearth
Off-road Equipment - Prep: 1 grader, 1 scraper, 1 loader/backhoe
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.65
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 42.70
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 6.65
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.01 11.03
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 42.70
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 2 of 26
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2015 17.3432 32.5160 23.4402 0.0370 6.6641 1.8779 8.4175 3.3971 1.7587 5.0103 0.0000 3,468.615
3
3,468.615
3
0.7541 0.0000 3,484.451
5
2016 17.2997 2.4347 2.6623 4.6700e-
003
0.1341 0.1977 0.3319 0.0356 0.1976 0.2332 0.0000 424.1980 424.1980 0.0405 0.0000 425.0484
Total 34.6429 34.9507 26.1025 0.0417 6.7982 2.0756 8.7494 3.4327 1.9563 5.2435 0.0000 3,892.813
3
3,892.813
3
0.7946 0.0000 3,909.499
9
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2015 17.3432 32.5160 23.4402 0.0370 2.6672 1.8779 4.4206 1.3430 1.7587 2.9561 0.0000 3,468.615
3
3,468.615
3
0.7541 0.0000 3,484.451
5
2016 17.2997 2.4347 2.6623 4.6700e-
003
0.1341 0.1977 0.3319 0.0356 0.1976 0.2332 0.0000 424.1980 424.1980 0.0405 0.0000 425.0484
Total 34.6429 34.9507 26.1025 0.0417 2.8013 2.0756 4.7525 1.3785 1.9563 3.1893 0.0000 3,892.813
3
3,892.813
3
0.7946 0.0000 3,909.499
9
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.79 0.00 45.68 59.84 0.00 39.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 3 of 26
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 14.6634 0.3510 26.9860 0.0370 3.5347 3.5347 3.5341 3.5341 430.8783 834.8680 1,265.746
2
1.2920 0.0292 1,301.944
6
Energy 0.0158 0.1358 0.0663 8.6000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1500e-
003
172.8702
Mobile 2.2080 5.7367 24.0237 0.0549 3.6649 0.0814 3.7463 0.9791 0.0749 1.0540 4,819.126
7
4,819.126
7
0.1929 4,823.177
1
Total 16.8872 6.2235 51.0760 0.0927 3.6649 3.6270 7.2919 0.9791 3.6199 4.5990 430.8783 5,825.819
1
6,256.697
4
1.4882 0.0324 6,297.991
9
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 2.6901 0.0452 3.8689 2.0000e-
004
0.0763 0.0763 0.0758 0.0758 0.0000 883.5738 883.5738 0.0239 0.0161 889.0576
Energy 0.0158 0.1358 0.0663 8.6000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1500e-
003
172.8702
Mobile 2.2080 5.7367 24.0237 0.0549 3.6649 0.0814 3.7463 0.9791 0.0749 1.0540 4,819.126
7
4,819.126
7
0.1929 4,823.177
1
Total 4.9139 5.9177 27.9589 0.0560 3.6649 0.1687 3.8335 0.9791 0.1615 1.1407 0.0000 5,874.525
0
5,874.525
0
0.2200 0.0192 5,885.104
9
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 4 of 26
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2015 1/28/2015 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2015 2/2/2015 5 3
3 Grading Grading 2/3/2015 2/10/2015 5 6
4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/11/2015 12/15/2015 5 220
5 Paving Paving 12/16/2015 12/29/2015 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/30/2015 2/23/2016 5 40
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
70.90 4.91 45.26 39.67 0.00 95.35 47.43 0.00 95.54 75.20 100.00 -0.84 6.11 85.21 40.66 6.56
Residential Indoor: 93,150; Residential Outdoor: 31,050; Non-Residential Indoor: 20,418; Non-Residential Outdoor: 6,806 (Architectural
Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 5 of 26
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 6 of 26
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.4676 0.0000 0.4676 0.0708 0.0000 0.0708 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 2,509.059
9
2,509.059
9
0.6357 2,522.410
4
Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 0.4676 1.8651 2.3327 0.0708 1.7469 1.8177 2,509.059
9
2,509.059
9
0.6357 2,522.410
4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 43.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 61.00 16.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 12.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 7 of 26
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0420 0.6743 0.4524 1.5900e-
003
0.0375 0.0115 0.0490 0.0103 0.0106 0.0208 161.7734 161.7734 1.2800e-
003
161.8002
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0600 0.0750 0.9312 1.8400e-
003
0.1453 1.2800e-
003
0.1466 0.0385 1.1700e-
003
0.0397 160.1641 160.1641 8.6200e-
003
160.3451
Total 0.1019 0.7493 1.3836 3.4300e-
003
0.1828 0.0128 0.1956 0.0488 0.0118 0.0606 321.9375 321.9375 9.9000e-
003
322.1453
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1824 0.0000 0.1824 0.0276 0.0000 0.0276 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 1.8651 1.8651 1.7469 1.7469 0.0000 2,509.059
9
2,509.059
9
0.6357 2,522.410
4
Total 3.0666 29.6778 22.0566 0.0245 0.1824 1.8651 2.0475 0.0276 1.7469 1.7745 0.0000 2,509.059
9
2,509.059
9
0.6357 2,522.410
4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 8 of 26
3.2 Demolition - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0420 0.6743 0.4524 1.5900e-
003
0.0375 0.0115 0.0490 0.0103 0.0106 0.0208 161.7734 161.7734 1.2800e-
003
161.8002
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0600 0.0750 0.9312 1.8400e-
003
0.1453 1.2800e-
003
0.1466 0.0385 1.1700e-
003
0.0397 160.1641 160.1641 8.6200e-
003
160.3451
Total 0.1019 0.7493 1.3836 3.4300e-
003
0.1828 0.0128 0.1956 0.0488 0.0118 0.0606 321.9375 321.9375 9.9000e-
003
322.1453
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.8203 32.4699 18.6797 0.0239 1.5973 1.5973 1.4695 1.4695 2,508.198
3
2,508.198
3
0.7488 2,523.923
1
Total 2.8203 32.4699 18.6797 0.0239 1.5908 1.5973 3.1881 0.1718 1.4695 1.6413 2,508.198
3
2,508.198
3
0.7488 2,523.923
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 9 of 26
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0369 0.0462 0.5731 1.1300e-
003
0.0894 7.9000e-
004
0.0902 0.0237 7.2000e-
004
0.0244 98.5625 98.5625 5.3000e-
003
98.6739
Total 0.0369 0.0462 0.5731 1.1300e-
003
0.0894 7.9000e-
004
0.0902 0.0237 7.2000e-
004
0.0244 98.5625 98.5625 5.3000e-
003
98.6739
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.6204 0.0000 0.6204 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.8203 32.4699 18.6797 0.0239 1.5973 1.5973 1.4695 1.4695 0.0000 2,508.198
3
2,508.198
3
0.7488 2,523.923
1
Total 2.8203 32.4699 18.6797 0.0239 0.6204 1.5973 2.2177 0.0670 1.4695 1.5365 0.0000 2,508.198
3
2,508.198
3
0.7488 2,523.923
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 10 of 26
3.3 Site Preparation - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0369 0.0462 0.5731 1.1300e-
003
0.0894 7.9000e-
004
0.0902 0.0237 7.2000e-
004
0.0244 98.5625 98.5625 5.3000e-
003
98.6739
Total 0.0369 0.0462 0.5731 1.1300e-
003
0.0894 7.9000e-
004
0.0902 0.0237 7.2000e-
004
0.0244 98.5625 98.5625 5.3000e-
003
98.6739
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.9656 31.2611 20.2019 0.0206 1.7524 1.7524 1.6122 1.6122 2,164.101
2
2,164.101
2
0.6461 2,177.668
7
Total 2.9656 31.2611 20.2019 0.0206 6.5523 1.7524 8.3048 3.3675 1.6122 4.9797 2,164.101
2
2,164.101
2
0.6461 2,177.668
7
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 11 of 26
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0461 0.0577 0.7163 1.4200e-
003
0.1118 9.8000e-
004
0.1128 0.0296 9.0000e-
004
0.0306 123.2032 123.2032 6.6300e-
003
123.3424
Total 0.0461 0.0577 0.7163 1.4200e-
003
0.1118 9.8000e-
004
0.1128 0.0296 9.0000e-
004
0.0306 123.2032 123.2032 6.6300e-
003
123.3424
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.5554 0.0000 2.5554 1.3133 0.0000 1.3133 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.9656 31.2611 20.2019 0.0206 1.7524 1.7524 1.6122 1.6122 0.0000 2,164.101
2
2,164.101
2
0.6461 2,177.668
7
Total 2.9656 31.2611 20.2019 0.0206 2.5554 1.7524 4.3078 1.3133 1.6122 2.9256 0.0000 2,164.101
2
2,164.101
2
0.6461 2,177.668
7
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 12 of 26
3.4 Grading - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0461 0.0577 0.7163 1.4200e-
003
0.1118 9.8000e-
004
0.1128 0.0296 9.0000e-
004
0.0306 123.2032 123.2032 6.6300e-
003
123.3424
Total 0.0461 0.0577 0.7163 1.4200e-
003
0.1118 9.8000e-
004
0.1128 0.0296 9.0000e-
004
0.0306 123.2032 123.2032 6.6300e-
003
123.3424
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.0268 25.8389 17.0465 0.0249 1.7597 1.7597 1.6870 1.6870 2,364.079
7
2,364.079
7
0.5662 2,375.970
1
Total 4.0268 25.8389 17.0465 0.0249 1.7597 1.7597 1.6870 1.6870 2,364.079
7
2,364.079
7
0.5662 2,375.970
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 13 of 26
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1512 1.5723 1.7344 3.4900e-
003
0.1000 0.0272 0.1272 0.0285 0.0250 0.0535 352.9962 352.9962 2.7700e-
003
353.0545
Worker 0.2813 0.3521 4.3695 8.6400e-
003
0.6818 6.0000e-
003
0.6878 0.1808 5.5000e-
003
0.1863 751.5393 751.5393 0.0404 752.3883
Total 0.4325 1.9243 6.1040 0.0121 0.7818 0.0332 0.8150 0.2093 0.0305 0.2398 1,104.535
6
1,104.535
6
0.0432 1,105.442
8
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 4.0268 25.8389 17.0465 0.0249 1.7597 1.7597 1.6870 1.6870 0.0000 2,364.079
7
2,364.079
7
0.5662 2,375.970
1
Total 4.0268 25.8389 17.0465 0.0249 1.7597 1.7597 1.6870 1.6870 0.0000 2,364.079
7
2,364.079
7
0.5662 2,375.970
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 14 of 26
3.5 Building Construction - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.1512 1.5723 1.7344 3.4900e-
003
0.1000 0.0272 0.1272 0.0285 0.0250 0.0535 352.9962 352.9962 2.7700e-
003
353.0545
Worker 0.2813 0.3521 4.3695 8.6400e-
003
0.6818 6.0000e-
003
0.6878 0.1808 5.5000e-
003
0.1863 751.5393 751.5393 0.0404 752.3883
Total 0.4325 1.9243 6.1040 0.0121 0.7818 0.0332 0.8150 0.2093 0.0305 0.2398 1,104.535
6
1,104.535
6
0.0432 1,105.442
8
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9443 19.7532 12.2652 0.0176 1.2418 1.2418 1.1437 1.1437 1,823.276
3
1,823.276
3
0.5345 1,834.500
6
Paving 0.3432 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.2875 19.7532 12.2652 0.0176 1.2418 1.2418 1.1437 1.1437 1,823.276
3
1,823.276
3
0.5345 1,834.500
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 15 of 26
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e-
003
0.1677 1.4800e-
003
0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e-
003
0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e-
003
185.0135
Total 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e-
003
0.1677 1.4800e-
003
0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e-
003
0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e-
003
185.0135
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9443 19.7532 12.2652 0.0176 1.2418 1.2418 1.1437 1.1437 0.0000 1,823.276
3
1,823.276
3
0.5345 1,834.500
6
Paving 0.3432 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.2875 19.7532 12.2652 0.0176 1.2418 1.2418 1.1437 1.1437 0.0000 1,823.276
3
1,823.276
3
0.5345 1,834.500
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 16 of 26
3.6 Paving - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e-
003
0.1677 1.4800e-
003
0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e-
003
0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e-
003
185.0135
Total 0.0692 0.0866 1.0745 2.1300e-
003
0.1677 1.4800e-
003
0.1691 0.0445 1.3500e-
003
0.0458 184.8048 184.8048 9.9400e-
003
185.0135
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.8813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-
003
0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177
Total 17.2879 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-
003
0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 17 of 26
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0553 0.0693 0.8596 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1800e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0800e-
003
0.0367 147.8438 147.8438 7.9500e-
003
148.0108
Total 0.0553 0.0693 0.8596 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1800e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0800e-
003
0.0367 147.8438 147.8438 7.9500e-
003
148.0108
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.8813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.4066 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-
003
0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177
Total 17.2879 2.5703 1.9018 2.9700e-
003
0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.2209 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0367 282.2177
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 18 of 26
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2015
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0553 0.0693 0.8596 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1800e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0800e-
003
0.0367 147.8438 147.8438 7.9500e-
003
148.0108
Total 0.0553 0.0693 0.8596 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1800e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0800e-
003
0.0367 147.8438 147.8438 7.9500e-
003
148.0108
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.8813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-
003
0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449
Total 17.2497 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-
003
0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 19 of 26
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0500 0.0625 0.7784 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1200e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0300e-
003
0.0366 142.7499 142.7499 7.3200e-
003
142.9036
Total 0.0500 0.0625 0.7784 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1200e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0300e-
003
0.0366 142.7499 142.7499 7.3200e-
003
142.9036
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.8813 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.3685 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-
003
0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449
Total 17.2497 2.3722 1.8839 2.9700e-
003
0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.1966 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0332 282.1449
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 20 of 26
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.2080 5.7367 24.0237 0.0549 3.6649 0.0814 3.7463 0.9791 0.0749 1.0540 4,819.126
7
4,819.126
7
0.1929 4,823.177
1
Unmitigated 2.2080 5.7367 24.0237 0.0549 3.6649 0.0814 3.7463 0.9791 0.0749 1.0540 4,819.126
7
4,819.126
7
0.1929 4,823.177
1
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2016
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0500 0.0625 0.7784 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1200e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0300e-
003
0.0366 142.7499 142.7499 7.3200e-
003
142.9036
Total 0.0500 0.0625 0.7784 1.7000e-
003
0.1341 1.1200e-
003
0.1353 0.0356 1.0300e-
003
0.0366 142.7499 142.7499 7.3200e-
003
142.9036
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 21 of 26
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 305.90 305.90 279.22 1,032,283 1,032,283
General Office Building 67.61 14.53 6.01 165,033 165,033
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 244.67 244.67 117.06 430,826 430,826
Total 618.18 565.10 402.29 1,628,142 1,628,142
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3
General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4
Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Strip Mall 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.514315 0.060290 0.180146 0.139458 0.042007 0.006636 0.015782 0.029894 0.001929 0.002512 0.004343 0.000595 0.002093
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 22 of 26
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0158 0.1358 0.0663 8.6000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1500e-
003
172.8702
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0158 0.1358 0.0663 8.6000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1500e-
003
172.8702
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
183.564 1.9800e-
003
0.0180 0.0151 1.1000e-
004
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
21.5958 21.5958 4.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.7272
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 26.6877 2.9000e-
004
2.6200e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
3.1397 3.1397 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
3.1588
Apartments Mid
Rise
1250.26 0.0135 0.1152 0.0490 7.4000e-
004
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
147.0890 147.0890 2.8200e-
003
2.7000e-
003
147.9841
Total 0.0158 0.1358 0.0664 8.7000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1600e-
003
172.8702
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 23 of 26
Use only Natural Gas Hearths
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
0.183564 1.9800e-
003
0.0180 0.0151 1.1000e-
004
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
21.5958 21.5958 4.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
004
21.7272
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Strip Mall 0.0266877 2.9000e-
004
2.6200e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
3.1397 3.1397 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
3.1588
Apartments Mid
Rise
1.25026 0.0135 0.1152 0.0490 7.4000e-
004
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
9.3200e-
003
147.0890 147.0890 2.8200e-
003
2.7000e-
003
147.9841
Total 0.0158 0.1358 0.0664 8.7000e-
004
0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 0.0109 171.8245 171.8245 3.2900e-
003
3.1600e-
003
172.8702
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 24 of 26
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.6901 0.0452 3.8689 2.0000e-
004
0.0763 0.0763 0.0758 0.0758 0.0000 883.5738 883.5738 0.0239 0.0161 889.0576
Unmitigated 14.6634 0.3510 26.9860 0.0370 3.5347 3.5347 3.5341 3.5341 430.8783 834.8680 1,265.746
2
1.2920 0.0292 1,301.944
6
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.1850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.3020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 12.0537 0.3058 23.1215 0.0368 3.5139 3.5139 3.5133 3.5133 430.8783 828.0000 1,258.878
3
1.2850 0.0292 1,294.928
4
Landscaping 0.1228 0.0452 3.8645 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 6.8680 6.8680 7.0600e-
003
7.0163
Total 14.6634 0.3510 26.9860 0.0370 3.5347 3.5347 3.5341 3.5341 430.8783 834.8680 1,265.746
2
1.2920 0.0292 1,301.944
6
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 25 of 26
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
10.0 Vegetation
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.1850 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
2.3020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0804 0.0000 4.3800e-
003
0.0000 0.0555 0.0555 0.0549 0.0549 0.0000 876.7059 876.7059 0.0168 0.0161 882.0414
Landscaping 0.1228 0.0452 3.8645 2.0000e-
004
0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 6.8680 6.8680 7.0600e-
003
7.0163
Total 2.6901 0.0452 3.8689 2.0000e-
004
0.0763 0.0763 0.0758 0.0758 0.0000 883.5738 883.5738 0.0239 0.0161 889.0576
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 10/24/2014 1:38 PMPage 26 of 26
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Report
PACIFIC GEOTECH, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
15038 CLARK AVE, HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 • TEL 626-279-5061 • FAX 626-279-5062
E-mail: info@PGIsoiI.com
April 11, 2011
Project No.: 0927-S
Mirth Development and Management, LLC
8728 Valley Blvd, Suite 206
Rosemead, California 91770
Attention: William Young
SUBJECT; Response to Geotechnical Report Reviews
Proposed Mixed-Use Building
8408 Garvey Ave, Rosemead, California
REFERENCE: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration Report dated 2/14/2011
Geotechnical Report Review by KLING Consulting Group Inc. dated 3/24/11
Geological Report Review by Earth Consultants International dated 3/18/11
Dear Mr. Young:
This is in response to the above-referenced geotechnical report reviews.
Geotechnical Report Review
Item 1
Based on Section 1613 of the 2010 California Building Code, updated seismic parameters are
provided as follows:
SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS (2010 California Building Code)
Occupancy Category
(Table 1604.5)
Importance Factors
(Table 11.5-1 ASCE 7)
Earth Materials and Site Class
(Table 1613.5.2 and Section 1613.5.2)
Mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration
(Figures 1613.5(3) and 1613.5(4))
Site Coefficients
(Table 1613.5.3(1) and 1613.5(2))
Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration
(Equations 16-36 and 16-37)
"
1.0
Short Period (0.2s)One-Second Period
Alluvium - SD
Ss=2.00(g)
Fa =1.0
SMS = 2.00 (g)
Si = 0.74 (g)
Fv= 1.5
SMI =1-11 (g)
(Table cont'd)
Project No.: 0927-S
8408 Garvey Ave, Rosemead
Page-
Design Acceleration
(Equations 16-38 and 16-39)
Seismic Design Category
(Table 11.6-1 ASCE 7)
SDS= 1.33(g)SD1 = 0.74(g)
D
The liquefaction potential was reevaluated using 5-percent damped design spectral response
acceleration of 1.33g as presented on Table 1, 2, and 3. The reevaluated liquefaction analyses
indicate that the site does not possess soil liquefaction potential.
Item 2
The report has been updated to utilize current codes including 2010 CBC and 2011 LABC by
replacing Seismic Design Parameters on page 9 with those depicted in Item 1 herein. Other
design parameters recommended in the report are not affected by the new codes and thus shall
remain unchanged.
Item 3
It was our opinion that sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM) are non-expansive unless it is clayey.
Additional expansion tests were performed to evaluate expansion potential of fine-sandy silt (ML)
in Boring-3 and silty sand (SM) in Boring-5 in accordance with ASTM D-4829. The test results are
as follows:
Sample
B-3
@10'
B-5
@10'
Classification
SILT, fine-sandy, brown
SAND, fine to medium,
brown
Dial Indicator
Initial Reading
500
500
Final Reading
477
483
% Expansion
-2.3
-1.7
Expansion
Potential
Non-
Expansive
Non-
Expansive
NOTE: Minus percent expansion indicates settlement.
Project No.: 0927-S Page - 3 -
8408 Garvey Ave, Rosemead
Item 4
Retaining wall shall be designed in accordance with Sections 1805 and 1807 of the 2010 CBC.
Retaining wall backdrain shall comply with Section 1805.4.2 of the 2010 CBC.
A drain shall be placed around the perimeter of the foundations that consists of gravel or crushed
stone containing not more than 10-percent material that passes through a No. 4 (4.75mm) sieve.
The top of the perforated drain pipe shall be covered with an approved filter membrane material.
All others applicable to the foundation drain of the project shall comply with Section 1805.4.2 of the
2010 CBC.
Item 5
No pavement is proposed at the street level ground surface. All parking will be on concrete slabs
at the basement and on the concrete deck over basement.
Item 6
Within the exterior flatwork areas such as concrete hardscape and walkway, the existing surface
soils shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, processed, and watered as necessary to achieve
near optimum moisture content, and then recompacted in place to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density.
Item 7
As shown on Cross Sections A-A' and B-B', Plates 3 and 4, the whole building has basement.
Thus, all the surface soils to a depth ranging from 8 to 11 feet will be removed for the basement
excavation; all footings will be placed at the basement level at depths of 9 to 13 feet below the
existing ground surface.
Project No.: 0927-S
8408 Garvey Ave, Rosemead
Page - 4 -
Geological Report Review
Item 1
Updated revised Seismic Design Parameters as shown under Item 1 of Geotechnical Report
Review are provided to the project structural engineer.
REFERENCES
1. 2010 CBC
2.2011 LABC
3. ASTM STANDARDS, VOLUME 04.08
Sincerely,
PACIFIC GEOTECH, INC.
PaulS. Kim, PE, GE
RGE No. 2066
CD -O Oo o n
^ ^ JSZ __ CDO ^ Q.
• - v* ^o rn coCD m o
• <b 5C/) -vj CD
o 28 °K fjj
O 73CD <
IICD 3-
~" OOJ T3
-~^ O_,. 3
CD mCO <-vi Q
c.
o
Q.
O
73m-nm73mzom
"D0)O
o
CD
CDO
0)C/J
3O0)
X O
CO
O
-I(DO
3
OQJ
om11
0
O•.'•11
03II
0.->II
INJ
=}~On
-Qc<!>.
0
0
V
en
#
0
^rnen
VMCOo
O_
oT
0
o
0
c>CD
U5
i
-
O
o
SIUl0CD
Ji-
hJUl01
Ul0
o
UlOJ
N?
O
OJ
sO
oCD
0
oj
^D
OONo
Z
>
o4-Ul
M
lUUl
ao
jscfj
Z
>
'
UlUl
'./ID)3
K
UlJ)
Ul
CD
CD
ONGO
^JUl
w•sD4-N)
GOOJ
CD
UlUl
(si
CD
UlUl
OJ
CD
CD
CD
UlUlOJ
CD
XIOJ
Z
>
CD-CUl
i — i
4i-
Ul
3
O3
J5crg
z
>
'
Ulo
l/>M3a
>ci.1
Ul
0
o
ONtNj
Ulo
wcrNJ
SO
•<]K)
O
OiCO
NJ
CD
Ul
w
oo
0
Ulo
OJ
o
-xlv]
z
>
4-N*
i— i
ib.Ul
D
O3
JZ
C2
Z
>
'
£kUl
(/5
i-a
Ul
o
CD
UiONNJUl
WWi — iON
4^OJ
CD
a*
NJ
CD
OJ
ON
CD
O
CD
OJH- i
ON
O
GC
z
>
GOUl
I— 1
4-*Ul
3O3i
_CCIt
Z
>
i
4-~O
Ul&)
3i"..
u•a
i.
Ul
CD
CD
UiOoCD
QJOO'jj
GOCD
O
0sUl
ho
o
oN>
Ul
Oo
CD
CThJ
Ul
CD
COUl
Z
>
K)NJ1—1
I—L
»bUl
o3
-Ocjj
Z
>
'-oUl
V)D)3a.
^r-jvO
Ul
0
CD
A.wXJUl
ro
*sOO
Vlo
o-<]CD
K)CDO
Ul00
4^
Oo
o
Uloc
4-.
O
GO^>
Z
>
MUlO
K-l
libUl
3
O3i
J3C1)
Z
>
i
OJo
VIDl3a.
10
•jj
Ul
O
CD
O->xjUlc^
hOOJXJ•X]
GOO
O
xjUl
NJO
xj
iNj
"- '
Oo
o
sK)
1—1
O
^O'-k>
Z
>
roc>-CO
1—i
4^Ul
O
J^cu
Z
>
i
NJUl
V)fi)3a.
ro
to-^
Ul
O
CD
wi— *
hJUl
NJOON
*k
g\
o
CON)
NJCDCD
Ul
*£>
K)
O
O
o
Ul^oro
o
sD4^.
Z
>
NJU3ro
i— *
**Ul
o3
J3C(T
^>
'
hjo
(A&~
O-
-c
ro
Ul
O
CD
NJUlOo
•VIUl
— 1
cro
o
VDN)
K>
O
CTC>
KJ
O
CD
O
CT-ON
NJ
O
sDUl
Z
>
^-i
^_i
4-*Ul
3C
3i
_C
C
I'D
Z
>
1
Ul
C/l1)3
CL
•&
Ul
4^
C>
Jl
COXIUl
1— 1
4*OJCO
OJro
^
o
ON
roCD
4^O
GO
Ul
O
K)
Ul&.
o
o^>^
Z
>
000a:
— i
**.Ul
3
O
3
-C
C
ro
Z
>
'
CD
(/)u3
•£>
Ul
ON
sD
4-
vJ
NJ
UlO
N)Ul
OJON
^
OJo
NJOCD
UlCT
M
O
—
0
Ul
ON
OC
O
•cGO
Z
>
^cOJGO
^j
*-.Ul
3Cai
_cc(D
Z
>
'
No
n
-
L
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e a
b
o
v
e H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y H
CO^~
0>
CO
(T>
ocr3
0)
CD"
01cr
CD
Sample Depth
0 (feet)
Soil Type
| Layer
i jg Thickness
Fines Content
^ (<0. 074mm)
Clay Content
^ (<0. 005mm)
q -o Total Overburden
Pressure
a -a Effective Over-
5- ^ burden Pressure
Measured
N-value
o 51 Overburden
z g Factor
o ^ N-Value
^ §• Correction
o 2 Factors
"z -o Normalized
sr =i N-value° ~^
S Fines ContentRo> Factor
51 Fines Content
3 Factor
:? 5 Corrected
§ g N-value
CO
51 Depth Reduction
M Coefficient
Q £ Cyclic
^° ^ Resistance Ratio
0 £ Cyclic Stress
7] 3 Ratio
mJ32 £j Magnitude
^Ti 5 Scaling Factori*N)
m
13 Factor of Safety
Volumetric
Strain
Settlement
IT
Oc
<B
C)
oc
o.
QJ
*5
CD1CD
crto01
x
u>
o
o
CO
O
o
a.
i.S"
00
CD
CD(D
cr
(Oen
5><
Q)CO
0)
2
DCD
C/)
^<"
|SJUl
O
•D
^ O —u <i> srx 0) Q)
1-2.
q m oQ) 13
9 =£ 03O -Q CD
C C — -
3 M ,^Q, 7T CO
> (D ^
<"> ^ '"^<~> m
?L CQCD 3
£ C
i &
OJ ^
CO
-1
CD
rn
S
71
O•n-A
O
Ocrn
T1
^o
Oz
m<
r~c
H
OZ
.3
0>o.
Zo
otohJ
ICrt
-o
o=?>o
O0>g.
fDo3"
5"o
CD•Do
Ornm
73
(£)
OOroNJ
o
CDnCDBcrCD~^
CJ
-"*
toto^•J
T>
oo
Q.
*0-*•
5
CD
^Omm
73
O
c/>ITO
"D
O
m
0)c
s
*r~.Q'c
CD
63
CDU)
oT3o(D
c^
C/>O.
u>
"4
7)m~nm
mzom
3
o
oii
p
o
ii
o3)11
O
II
N)
U~0D
.5'
C
ro.
0
O
V
Oi
o
z
«raU)
V11
Uo
o
Ii
0
oo
o^o
I/)
o5
-
o
0
X](_n
J>NJUl•ji
>uoo
o
UlQ
KJ
~
wo
cr
oo
_i
°
OJ
cr
pcr
vO
2
>
Im
_*
4^ui
cs
_Cc3
Z
>
'
01ui
v>QJ
D
ji-e
Ul
O
o
oOO^JUl
Jj^o4-
NJ
OOUl
p
UlUl
N)oo
Ulcr-
cr
oo
_i
o
Ulo
cr
o
^OJ
Z
>
o^oUl
_i
*-Ul
o5
J5cre
Z
>
i
Ulc;
1/1H3Q.
*.•a
rji£.
Ul
O
o
crr^»Ul0
wC3^
K)«
MNJ
O
Ul00
NJOo
Ulow
0o
_J
o
Ulo
UJ
o--J<1
z
>
4^.N>
^— i
4^Ul
3
O3
£Crt
z
>
'
4>
Ui
£
fciL<c
Ul
o
o
Ula-wUl
r-Jw
cr
j>
fvJ
o
a^i— *
NiO
W•a
O^
O
O
1^1
O
'jj
o^
pboK-»
Z
>
_iGO
Ul
—i
Au
ao3
jacio
Z
>
'
o
t/1— '
p
C
Ul
o
0
Ul
o
r-*Jo~Q
COo
o
aUl
W0o
a*ro
Ul
oo
1 — .
0
crN)
Ul
0
boUl
Z
>
K>NJN-t
i_k
tUUl
3
O
3
_C
Cro
z
>
1
^JUl
Wla
3
-o
Ul
O
O
lbwX]Ul
tuc^\0
4-o
o
X]o
rooo
wr^J
ip»
o
CD
_i
O
w
'-0
Illk
0bo^o
Z
>
roUlo
1— 1
*h
Ul
3
O3
-C
Cro
z
>
'
Jjo
VIa
3
Mp
£
Ul
<=>
o
OJ-^JUlo
roOJ^
UlUl
o
bi
rooo
4ksO
ON
O
0
„
CD
-t*
^cr
o
SOOJ
Z
>
roo^OO
_
A
Ul
3
O3
JBC0)
Z
>
i
roUl
VIU1
o-•
M£
Ul
_^>sO
0
vJ
O
^J
•oUl
NJOo^4-
OJOO
o
00ro
NJOCD
OJ\
Ul
Ulo
_.
NJ
Uloo
ofe
z
>
NJOJNJ
—£Ul
3
O3
JSCo
H
>
'
NJO
V)Si3a.
po
Ul
O
o
NJmOo
•^JUl—
*"NJ
O^NJ
10OCD
£k
CN
it*>
O
O
,
0
4^CT-
4>
O
'sOUl
Z
>
sX
^
4-Ul
3
O3
£co
Z
•>;»
'
Ul
VII3a.
•-
"O
Ul
4>
Ul
^J
NJ
1—1
OC^JUl
— '
tH>OJGO
OJ4>
i—t
CDcr
NJ0CD
*".OJ
OJ
oo
__
o
A,OJ
OJ
o
'vO\
z
>
o00OO
1— i
«lUl
3o3
&
C2
Z
>
'
o
t/iOJ3
-a
Ul
^Ccr
Uljj
•oUlo
NJUl
£>•O
—l
OJ0
NJ
O0
crNJ
Ul
O
^J
_- i
O
cr4*
4>
O
'sDCC
Z
>
^5OJ00
i— i
4^Ul
_jO3
^Crt
Z
>
'
No
n
-
L
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e a
b
o
v
e H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y H
toj(DW
O— iOc3
Q)(-»-(D—i
0)o-
CD
Sample Depth
0 (feet)
Soil Type
| Layer
I if Thickness
0 Fines Content
^ (<0. 074mm)
Clay Content
^ (<0. 005mm)
i otai
<Q "5 Overburden— «Pressure
q -o Effective Over-
^ burden Pressure
z Measured
N-value
o 51 Overburden
z ^ Factor
o ^ N-Value
£ §r Correction
o ^ Factors
'z jn Normalized
5T "S N-valueo S
S Fines Content
S Factor
S1 Fines Content
3 Factor
;? 51 Corrected
p g N-value
C/l
S1 Depth Reduction
^ Coefficient
Q 51 Cyclic
-5° 5 Resistance Ratio
o 51 Cyclic Stress
73 3 Ratio
m
2 5 Magnitude
TI S Scaling Factor
enNJ
m
~ Factor of Safety
Volumetric
Strain
Settlement3-
oc-1
Q
•o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
sf
cr
cn
~T
C/)'
O
o'
gh G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
l
m
S
2.
crCOc/>
j>
Q
0)to
CD
CD
on>3
to
CD
O
^ O •— •^ & STx w °*
3 ^ <8c 3 Q.3 m o3 Qi D
? § DDn o O
3 Q) ^Q. 7T tCl> n» ^o ^
S<gn> 3
i-i- ci
i &
•— * ~vj
OJ — '
to
H
S
•n
yj
O"n
c/>O
r-
r—
JQ
U
E
F
A
C
1
__:
O
m<
r-
H
OZ
? 5a o 8
com
m
<
§" w"
-" o
is-
^J Q)
C
6'
o_
5
IDO
oCDO
CDO
COy>
J2.5T
o
tpo
o
1
p
0
II
oaii
O
ii
NJ
30D
B'c5
no
V
Ul
5?
0
^S*oOto
Vn
OJo
0
5L
0bo
cro
(/)Bl
3
"o
-
0
O
•VIUloo
4-NJUlOn
h«loo
CD
Ulw
ro~o
»w
xl
Oo
0
o->OJ
X]
o
31"
^C
Z
>
O£Ul
4^
Ul
3
O3
-G
Crt>
z
>
UlUl
ui&3
-o
Ul
CD
O
oQOXIUl
OJ
xO•t*r ->
£»xi
. —
UlUl
KJCDO
w
'jj
CDo
0
w. — '
UJ
o
VJUJ
z
>
osOUl
4>Ul
3o
_0c
CD
z
>
Ul0
:/iB)3Ci_
tt
Ul
o
o
CTNJUl0
wcr
NJsB
**XI
O
f-ncc
NJoo
OJNJ
00
, — ,
o
o
wNJ
00
Q
^XI
z
>
4^NJ
4taUl
3f\
J5crj
Z
>
4-
Ul
t/>
$>
,0
Ul
o
o
UlcrN)Ul
r_o55
c^
**K>
O
CT
NJOO
r>>O
sO
Oo
0
UJolo
0
Oo
z
>
00Ul
A.
Ul
pQ
a
£cfD
z
>
'
4^O
WlP)
3
jjf
ai
CD
CD
mCDOO
'->J
CDCDUJ
i—t
CDff
p
cr-
Ul
KJOO
OO
N>
XI
CD
CD
CD
OOK)
XI
O
OOUl
z
>
(•JNJi— i
**Ul
3O
3
_C
Cfj
z
>
I
'^JUl
UlB)3
'jjE
r^jo
Ul
CD
O
>*•OJX]
Ul
rocr^oo
*flo
CD
XI
CD
tO
CD
O
XIUl
h-*
0
o
CD
X]Ui
i—t
O
CO,c
2
>
ro
Ulo
A.
Ui
3O
3
JS
C(T.
z
>
'
wc
U1B)
3
i j
i
Ul
O
o
<->JXIUlCD
K)U)XI
X)
OUi
O
XI
Ul
NJCD
O
^C4^
O>
O
CD
O
^ot£
cr
0
^pw
Z
>
tocr00
•b.
Ul
3
O
3
-C
Cu
Z
>
•
roUl
(/iu
3
toS
[-jo
Ul
CD
O
LO
NJ
Ul
NJ0cr4^
GO
OO
o
OOho
NJ
Oo
00cr
\
o
o
o
cccro
CD-c4-
z
>
NJwNJ
**Ul
30
3
.C
C0
Z
>
•
NJCD
U)2-
3a
>D
[O
Ul
CD
0
NJUl0o
I—t
X]Ul
00G3
!~
sDNJ
NJO
O
xO
cr
oo
o
sO
cr
ooUi
Z
>
5
4*
Ui
3
C
3
J3cm
Z
>
Ul
viB)
a.
4-
O
Ul
CD
O
OO
XIUl
p— 1
4b
OJCO
Ulo
^
CDcr
NJoo
ONUJ
X|
00
o
CTGJ
X]
O
vCX]
Z
>
o0000
4^Ul
3O
3
JZCjj
Z
>
K-i
O
CflB)
Q.
P
Ul
U3OJ
Ul
CD
UJ
NJUlCD
i— ii— i
NJUl
UJ
_
'jJCD
NJ
O
O
4^00lu
f*
sO
NJ
crNJ
NJ
O
>C5OO
Z
>
^oOJOO
*>Ul
3
O
3
_CCc
Z
>
•
No
n
-
L
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e a
b
o
v
e H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y H
(O
^CDO)
Q
oc
Z3
sOJI—t-
CD
—1Q)
CT
0)
Sample Depth
0 (feet)
Soil Type
| Layer
i jjf Thickness
o Fines Content
^ (<0. 074mm)
Clay Content
^ (<0. 005mm)
Q -o Total Overburden< w _,— Pressure
q -o Effective Over-
= - " burden Pressure
z Measured
N-value
o 51 Overburden
z "5 Factor
o ^ N-Value
£ §• Correction
o Jo Factors
'z -° Normalized
g"1 o N-value
51 Fines Contentpoi Factor
51 Fines Content
3 Factor
? E Corrected
o g N-value
w
S Depth Reduction
g Coefficient
Q S Cyclic
^° -u Resistance Ratioiji
o 51 Cyclic Stress
73 3 Ratio
m
^ 5 Magnitude
TI § Scaling Factor
VIN)
m
£ Factor of Safety
Volumetric
* Strain
SettlementIT
oc
1
oc
13
Q.
|
CD
— *>CD
crCD
X
w.'o
o"
XCQ"zr
O
oc
Q_Si
Ql
5T
poo
2-cr(O
j>
CD
3to(Tl
2-
oCD
</>^•'
— i
o
"a
S CD '-^
01 £ STx c/> >*{
3 ^ <t>g =» Q.
3 s1 i
9 § DO
O _Q O
Q. ?r «a
0 ^ ^8 »Q. to(t> 3
"" ' ~'
^-»- Ci &
.— l xi
OJ
CO
H
5
n
to
O•n
(/)3
i-
Dcm
TI
^O— f
6
"Z.m<
i™c
H
O
"Z.
APPENDIX C
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
Robin Environmental Management
Far a Shiny Happy Earth
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
APRIL 24, 2012
8404-8416 GARVEY AVENUE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVENUE
(WITH NEW APN 5283-005-028 COMBINED FROM OLD APN 5283
005-001, 002, 003, 008, & 009; SEE APPENDIX B)
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
TOMATO BANK, N.A. (BANK)
1420 EAST VALLEY BOULEVARD
ALHAMBRA, CA91801
PROJECT NO. 213412
1015 VIA ROMALES, SAN DIMAS, CA 91773 TEL: (909) 592-3833 FAX: (909) 305-8689
PHASE f ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Objective 5
1.2 Scope of Work 5
2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 6
2.1 Geographical Description of Property 6
2.2 General Description of the Subject Property 6
2.3 Present Tenants and Business Operation 7
2.4 Past Tenants and Business Operation 8
2.4.1 County Assessor's Office Records 8
2.4.2 City Building Permit Records 8
2.4.3 Historic City Directory Records 8
2.4.4 Site Development/Occupancy History 9
2.5 Regional Physical Setting 9
2.6 Hydrogeological Information 10
2.7 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage 10
2.7.1 Record Search Sources 10
2.7.2 List & Quantities of Hazardous Materials 10
2.7.3 Permits, Licenses and Registrations 11
2.7.4 Violation or Non-Compliance Notice 11
2.7.5 Regulatory Database Record Search 11
2.7.6 Environmental Lien Records 11
3. PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE 12
3.1 Air Quality - Indoor & Visible Emissions 12
3.2 Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) 12
3.3 Lead Based Paint (LBP) 13
3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) 14
3.5 Underground Storage Tank (UST) 14
3.6 Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) 15
3.7 Fuel Islands 15
3.8 Hydraulic Hoist Unit 15
3.9 Hazardous Materials/Petroleum Products Storage & Handling 15
3.10 Other Containers 15
3.11 Hazardous Waste Storage 15
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD. CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.12 Distressed Vegetation 15
3.13 Stockpiled Soils 16
3.14 Wastewater Treatment Unit & Clarifiers 16
3.15 Solid Waste Disposal 16
3.16 Wells 16
3.17 Underground Pipelines 16
3.18 Boilers & HVAC Systems 16
3.19 Visual Indication of Spills, Leakage, Staining 17
3.20 Soil Staining or Surface Staining on Natural/Unpaved Land 17
3.21 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons 17
3.22 Herbicides/Pesticides 17
3.23 Radon 17
4. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 19
4.1 Adjacent/Adjoining Businesses 19
4.2 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage 19
5. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH AND
POTENTIAL OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION SOURCES 20
5.1 Historical Background & Scope of Coverage 20
5.2 Database Sources 20
A. Federal Sources 20
B. California State Sources 22
C. Regional Sources 23
D. Other Sources 23
5.3 Case Study References 24
A. Case-Closure 24
B. Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory Reports on LUFT (LUST)'s 24
C. Hydrological Gradient 24
5.4 Potential Sources of Contamination 25
5.5 UST, Disposal Sites, and Generators 25
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
6. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 26
7. LIMITATIONS AND CERTICATION STAMP 30
8. QUALIFICATION STATEMENT FOR PERSONNEL CONDUCTING
THE PHASE I ASSESSMENT 31
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIGURES & PHOTOS
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 RECENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SITE AND ITS
VICINITY GENERAL LAYOUT
FIGURE 3 SITE PHOTOS
APPENDIX B COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RECORDS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH DATABASE
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE TO MEET OR EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS AS SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY FOR TESTING & MATERIALS (ASTM) STANDARD PRACTICE E 1527-05. IT IS FOR THE EXPRESS USE OF THE CLIENT,
AND ITS CONTENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE PREVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT
CONSTITUTES AN AGREEMENT BY THE CLIENT TO ASSUME FULL LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. THIS
REPORT IS FOR THE SOLE USE AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLIENT, AND IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED
TO OUTSIDE PARTIES. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT IS FURNISHED IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS OBTAINED FROM
PUBLIC & PRIVATE SOURCES AND DATABASE CONSIDERED RELIABLE. REM MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OF WARRANTY
REGARDING THE ACCURACY, OR RELIABILITY, QUALITY OR COMPLETENESS OF SUCH INFORMATION. IN NO EVENT, SHALL
REM BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXAMPLARY DAMAGES. THE CUSTOMER
SHALL ASSUME FULL LIABILITY FOR USE OF THIS REPORT.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
This report summarizes the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the
subject property performed by Robin Environmental Management (REM) in April 2012. The
purpose of this Environmental Site Assessment is to evaluate the potential for environmental
concerns or liabilities due to past and/or current land use practices at the subject site or from
nearby properties. This assessment included in this report is solely targeted for CERCLA
(Superfund) liability and the "innocent landowner defense", to permit user to satisfy one of the
requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability, by
conducting all appropriate inquiries to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs).
1.2 Scope of Work
• Visual investigation of the property to obtain information regarding obvious visual signs of
adverse environmental conditions, contamination, hazardous material usage, storage and
handling on and in the adjoining sites (only up to one parcel next to the subject property)
of the subject property
• Visual survey of the adjoining land uses (only up to one parcel next to the subject
property) and determination of any current nearby operations which may potentially
impact the subject site
• Government document search of records compiled by various government agencies for
on site or nearby operations (past and present) to aid in the identification of any potential
contamination sources
• Review of building permit records available at local agency and other pertinent
documents to identify any potential past on-site operations which may have
environmental implications.
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
2.1 Geographical Description of Property
The subject site at 8408-8416 Garvey Avenue & 2736-2748 Delta Avenue (with new APN
5283-005-028 combined from old APN 5283-005-001, 002, 003, 008, & 009; see Appendix
B) covers following five sub-lots (see Figure 2 for location/configuration of each sub-lot):
8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-001) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular-shaped lot located at the southeastern corner of (the E-W trending) Garvey
Avenue and (the N-S trending) Delta Avenue
8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-002) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular-shaped lot immediately to the east of the 8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-003) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular shaped-lot immediately to the east of the 8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot
2746-2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-008) - a roughly E-W trending
rectangular shaped-lot mainly to the south of above three sub-lots (8404, 8408-8412, and
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lots)
2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-009) - a roughly E-W trending
rectangular shaped-lot immediately to the south of the 2746-2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot
The subject property lies in the south-central portion of the city of Rosemead, California, as
shown on Figure 1 (Site Location Map), Figure 2 (Recent Aerial Photograph Showing Site
and Its Vicinity General Layout), and Figure 3 (Photos).
2.2 General Description of the Subject Property
General descriptions of five site sub-lots are as follow (with configurations/locations of five
site sub-lots shown on Figure 2):
8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-001) - is with a two-story restaurant/
apartment building (restaurant on the first floor and apartments on the second floor) in the
north-central portion of the sub-lot, a small storage structure at the southeastern corner of the
sub-lot, and asphalt-paved yards/parking lots for remaining portions of the sub-lot
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-002) - with a single-story
commercial building (8412 Garvey Avenue) and its associated concrete-paved parking lot in
the northern 1 /3 of the sub-lot and a single-story family dwelling (8408 Garvey Avenue) and
its associated yard in the southern 2/3 of the sub-lot
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-003) - currently asphalt-paved parking
lot
2746-2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-008) -with a single-story duplex
(2746-2748 Delta Avenue) and its associated yard/separately detached parking garage in the
western 1/2 of the sub-lot, and separately fenced asphalt-paved parking lot with a parking
garage type structure at its northeastern corner in the eastern % of the sub-lot
2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-009) - with two single-story family
dwellings (2736 Delta Avenue to the south and 2740 Delta Avenue to the north) and their
associated yard in the western Yz of the sub-tot, and separately fenced asphalt-paved parking
lot (connecting to asphalt-paved parking lot in the eastern 1/2 of the 2746-2748 Delta Avenue
sub-lot with no fence separating them) in the eastern 7-z of the sub-lot
No pits, ponds, swamps, dry wells, or lagoons were observed on the subject property. No
apparently significant surface staining was observed on the paved/unpaved out-door areas
and building areas of the site.
2.3 Present Tenants and Business Operation
At the time of site inspection on April 19, 2012, American's Tio School Constitution Center
occupied the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building, and the 8412 Garvey
Avenue commercial building was apparently unoccupied. The second floor apartment
units of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building, the 8408 Garvey Avenue single-family dwelling
(SFD), the 2746-2748 Delta Avenue duplex, the 2740 Delta Avenue SFD, and the 2736
Delta Avenue SFD were either occupied by residences or unoccupied. The 8416 Garvey
Avenue sub-lot was occupied as for-sale used car parking lot of used car sales business with
the street address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue to the east of the northern half of the site. The
eastern halves of 2746-2748 Delta Avenue and 2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lots were
separately fenced and occupied as non-for-sale (like employee) car parking lot of used car
sales business with the street address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue to the east of the northern
half of the site. Current site operations generally do not involve using/generating significant
quantities of hazardous materials/wastes.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
2.4 Past Tenants and Business Operation
Methods of researching historic use of ownership of the subject property employed by REM
are as follows.
• Los Angeles County Assessor's Office records
• City of Rosemead Building Department & Zoning/Planning
• Historic City Directory records
2.4.1 County Assessor's Office records
Based on records summary (included as Appendix B) available at the Los Angeles County
Assessor's Office, the site was developed into generally residence setting in the 1910's
and the 1920's when all currently on-site buildings, except the 8412 Garvey Avenue
commercial building (constructed in 1935), were constructed.
2.4.2 City Building Permit Records
REM staff visited the City of Rosemead Building Department (CRBD) to review all available
building permit (BP) and certificate of occupancy (C/O) records for the subject site. Records
available at the CRBD show that, the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building was
occupied by a market in the 1950's and has been occupied by various restaurants since
around 1960. The 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building was constructed in 1935 and
has been occupied by a liquor store since 1964.
2.4.3 Historic City Directory Records
REM staff reviewed historic city directory records available at the Sherman Library,
Newport Beach, CA and the City of Los Angeles Main Library. Available historic city
directory records show that the 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building has been
occupied by a liquor store since the 1950's. Prior to the middle 1950's, the 8416 Garvey
Avenue address was with residence fisting and there was no listing for the 8420/8424 Garvey
Avenue address. Starting from the middle 1950's, there was no listing for the 8416 Garvey
Avenue address and the 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue addresses were occupied by auto body
shops from the middle 1950's to the early 1980's and used auto sales from the middle 1980's
to present. Based on above records, the 8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot, and likely along with
the eastern halves of 2746-2748 Delta Avenue and 2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lots, were
apparently converted from residential setting to their current vehicle parking lot setting around
the middle 1950's.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
2.4.4 Site Development/Occupancy History Summary
Based on historic site occupancy data listed above, development/occupancy history of the
subject site can be summarized below:
Prior to the 1910's - Remained undeveloped
1910's to 1920's - Developed into generally residence setting with all currently on-site
buildings, except the 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building
(constructed in 1935), constructed
The middle 1930's - The 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building was constructed and
the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building was converted
to its current commercial setting
The middle 1930's to recent - Various markets, liquor stores, restaurants, etc, occupied the
ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building and the
8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building
Around the middle 1950's - The 8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot, and likely along with the
eastern halves of 2746-2748 Delta Avenue and 2736-2740
Delta Avenue sub-tots, were likely converted from residential
setting to their current vehicle parking lot setting APN 5283-
005-003 (8416 Garvey Avenue), along with the eastern halves
of APN 5283-005-008 & 009, were apparently converted from
residential setting to their current vehicle parking lot setting
2.5 Regional Physical Setting
The subject property's physical locations were researched employing a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle (Quad) Map relevant to the
subject property. The USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map has an approximate scale of 1 inch to
2,000 feet, and shows physical features with environmental significance such as wetlands,
water bodies, roadways, mines, and buildings. Please refer to Appendix A, Figure 1.
The physical and natural features illustrated on the Quad Map served as areas of visual
emphasis when conducting the site inspection of the subject property. The USGS 7.5
Minute Quad Map was used as the only Standard Physical Setting Source, and is sufficient
as a single reference. The surface elevation of the subject site is approximately 260 feet
above Mean Sea Level with a gradual topographic down gradient generally towards the
southeast.
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA
2.6 Hydrogeological Information
The subject site lies within the San Gabriel Valley - the northeastern one third of the Los
Angeles Coastal Basin Plain. The Los Angeles Coastal Basin Plain is an alluviated,
coastal lowland plain bordered on the north, northeast, east, and southeast by mountains
and hills, and transected by numerous faults. Water well drilling logs show that the upper
sediments that underlie the subject property are typified by gravel, sand, and silt. These
sediments comprise Recent and Pleistocene Alluvium deposits which extend from the
surface to a depth of approximately 440 feet. The groundwater zone occurs in Recent and
Pleistocene Alluvium deposits at a depth of approximately 135 feet below ground surface
(County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, "San Gabriel Valley Groundwater
Contours", 1998).
Hydrogeologically, the subject property is located within the southwestern portion of the
San Gabriel Valley Groundwater Basin. In general, the groundwater zones of the Basin
are unconfined, and hence are somewhat unprotected from downward migrating pollutants.
The general direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the subject property is reported
to be toward west (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, "San Gabriel
Valley Groundwater Contours", 1998).
2.7 Historical and Current Hazardous Substance Usage
2.7.1 Record search sources
REM's field engineer visited or contacted the following public agencies to find any records
of former operation of Underground Storage Tank (UST) of gasoline or any other
hazardous substances on the subject site premise:
• City of Rosemead Building Department
• County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Environmental Programs
Division
• Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region,
No records were found in reference to historical usage or handling of UST on the subject
property.
2.7.2 List and quantities of the hazardous materials
List and quantities of the hazardous materials previously or presently used, disposed,
treated, stored, or generated at the subject property were searched and assessed. During
10
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
the site inspection, the use, storage, and generation of significant quantity of hazardous
materials was not observed. No regulatory agency data was found regarding historic or
present use of the subject property in regards to hazardous materials used, stored, treated,
disposed or generated at the subject property.
2.7.3 Permits, licenses, and registrations
All present and past records of permits, licenses, registrations, certificates of environmental
relation were searched. No equipment requiring environmentally related licensing was
observed. Thus, no permits or registrations were necessary for the operation of subject
business.
2.7.4 Violation or non-compliance notice
No violation or notice of non-compliance was issued with the present environmental
regulations, according to the findings of our environmental assessment on the subject site.
2.7.5 Regulatory database record research
According to the conducted government records search (see Section 4.0), the subject
property was not recognized being listed on the following environmental regulatory database
record research (NETR database): NPL, RCRA-TSD, CERCLIS, NFRAP, RCRA-G, ERNS,
CORRACTS, CORTESE, CALSITES, LUST, UST, and SWF.
2.7.6 Environmental lien records
Under current environment regulation, government agency may place an environmental lien
on the property with known contamination and no cleanup/mitigation activities apparently
intended being conducted by the site owner upon the agency issued the cleanup
enforcement order. The conducted government records search shows that there are no
environmental liens placed by the federal environmental agency under CERCLA regulations
for the subject site. REM staff searched the California State Dept. of Toxic Substances
website EnviroStor data search and found no environmental liens were placed by the State
environmental agency for the subject site. City of Rosemead records also show that there
are no environmental liens placed by the local environmental agency for the subject site.
11
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
3. PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE
REM's environmental assessor/geologist performed the field survey of the subject site and
adjacent properties on April 19, 2012. A site location map and a recent aerial photograph
showing site and its vicinity general layout are included as Figure 1 and Figure 2,
respectively.
3.1 Air Quality - Indoor and Visible Emissions
No unusual smells, obnoxious odors, or visual emissions were observed during the
inspection of the subject property. Neither air emission stacks nor paint booth were present,
thus no pertinent permits were searched for the previous records of violation history.
3.2 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM)
Asbestos-containing building materials are normally found in the following items. REM
inspected such materials as to the visual conditions and locations, however the actual
sampling analysis is beyond the contracted scope of work, thus not included in the report.
Potential asbestos-containing building materials in general;
• floor tile and associated mastic adhesive underneath the floor tile,
• carpet mastic,
• linoleum sheeting and associated backing material or leveling compound,
• drywall joint compound or mud product,
• plaster compound,
• acoustic ceiling texture,
• ceiling tile and associated mastic adhesive,
• window putty or glazing,
• roofing material (shingle, cap-sheet, etc.),
• roofing penetration mastic,
• transite panel or flue pipe,
• fire-proofing material,
• pipe insulation or wrapping, etc.
As discussed in section 2.4, it can be concluded that all the site buildings were constructed
prior to the year when asbestos for commercial use was banned by federal government in
1978. Thus, if the buildings were built prior to 1978, building materials are assumed as
12
PHASE i ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
suspicious asbestos-containing materials (ACM's). However, though buildings were built
after 1978, comprehensive asbestos survey can find asbestos fiber in the subject building to
any degree. In such cases, even if asbestos-containing material might be present at the site,
so long as they would be in an undisturbed state without disturbances or dismantlement,
such ACM's do not pose an immediate health risk to building occupants. Local Building &
Safety Department and appropriate Air Quality Management District (AQMD) require all
possible asbestos-containing materials (ACM's) to be identified and removed in the case of
renovation or demolition of existing structure which might disturb or dismantle the suspicious
ACM's.
If it is found that asbestos is contained within subject building materials through
comprehensive asbestos survey, the implementation of an Asbestos Operations and
Maintenance Program shall be developed, in order to assure the safety of occupants who
may be exposed to potential asbestos hazards.
An AHERA Certified Inspector or a State of California Certified Asbestos Consultant can
perform the asbestos survey involving bulk sampling. NIST/NVLAP accredited laboratory
using Polarized Light Microscopy with Dispersion Station (PLM/DS) in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Interim Method of the Determination of Asbestos in
Bulk Insulation Samples" (EPA-600-M4-82-020).
3.3 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
As discussed in section 2.4, it can be concluded that the currently on-site buildings were all
constructed prior to the year of 1978 when lead-based paint in exterior and interior coating for
commercial use was banned by federal government. Due to the dangers of lead poisoning,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of lead-based paint (LBP),
defined as containing more than 0.06% lead by weight, to consumers, and the use of LBP in
residences and other areas where consumers have direct access to painted surfaces.
Effective June 3, 1993, the Lead in Construction Standard codified in 29 CFR (Code of
Federal Regulations) 1926.62 applies to sources or potential sources of lead exposure
present in an "employment-related" context.
The trigger mechanism for application of the standard is an activity that, by its inherent
nature, may cause exposure to lead. Therefore, within the context of regulatory compliance
for OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Agency), the subject property did not appear to
require further response to suspect lead-based paint as no on-site activity by its inherent
nature would cause exposure to lead.
13
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
However, prior to renovation, demolition, or any activity that will cause a disturbance of any
suspect lead-based paint, sampling to determine lead content is recommended.
In 1978, the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential
applications; however, usage in general industry continued at a decreased rate to the
present. Lead-based paint presents a hazard through inhalation or ingestion of paint chips or
vapor fumes. The greatest cumulative health threat is to young children, and for this reason
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has promulgated lead standards
and survey requirements for buildings affected by HUD funding. This HUD regulation
represents the only federal requirement for lead-based paint, hazard management applicable
to privately owned structures.
3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (RGB's)
Prior to 1978, RGBs were commonly used in dielectric fluids in transformers, capacitors, and
light ballasts due to their desirable thermal characteristics, and hydraulic fluid compactor.
Due to their demonstrated toxicity and persistence in the environment, PCB manufacturing in
the United States was discontinued.
Pole-mounted transformers were found in the vicinity of the subject building, appearing in
good condition without any sign of leakage. No PCB-containing hydraulic fluid trash
compactor was discovered. There is also no concrete pad-mounted transformer located on
the site premise.
No PCB-containing light ballasts were inspected, which operate fluorescent light fixtures.
Separate survey of PCB's on existing light ballasts can only determine the content, unless
such ballasts contained in the fluorescent light fixtures are labeled with "no PCB". Prior to
construction or any disturbances to the existing light fixtures, PCB-ballasts survey has to be
performed, and identified PCB-ballasts shall properly be disposed of by incineration or
recycled within authorized facilities.
3.5 Underground Storage Tank (UST)
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of surface or above ground
(e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes, fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, sumps, spill containment
device, leak detection device, etc.) features normally associated with underground storage
tanks (UST's).
14
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
3.6 Aboveground Storage Tank
REM's field officer performed the visual inspection of the subject site to find no evidence of
surface or above ground (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes, fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts,
concrete pad, drains in vicinity, etc.) features normally associated with aboveground storage
tanks (AST's). Visual observation also includes the inspection to identify any surface
markings indicating the existence of aboveground product pipelines.
3.7 Fuel Islands
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of fuel islands or dispensers
either in operation or abandoned.
3.8 Hydraulic Hoist Unit
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no presence of underground hydraulic
hoist units within the subject site premise.
3.9 Hazardous Materials / Petroleum Products Storage & Handling
No storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste was found during the site
investigation. No severely improper waste stream processing or disposal practices were
observed on the subject property.
3.10 Other Containers
No other containers indicating any sign of environmental concern were observed during the
site inspection.
3.11 Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal (TSD)
No storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste was found during the site
investigation. No severely improper waste stream processing or disposal practices were
observed on the subject property.
3.12 Distress Vegetation
Planters and vegetation in the vicinity of and within the subject site were found well
maintained on bare soil or within separate planters in relatively good appearance with no
sign of chemical stress or unnatural appearance.
15
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
3.13 Stockpiled Soils
REM'ssite inspection did not reveal any evidence of stockpiled soils on the ground of subject
property,
3.14 Waste water Treatment Unit /Clarifier
No underground industrial wastewater treatment facility, i.e., clarifier was observed on the
subject property during the site visit.
Storm water drainage system in the close proximity of the subject area did not identify any
abnormal accumulation of petroleum or chemical run-off or foreign materials. No unusual
blockage of the storm-water control system was observed during the site visual investigation
on the outdoor parking lot, roof of subject building, or surface areas. REM recommends no
additional investigation on described storm-water systems at the subject property.
3.15 Solid Waste Disposal
No improper activities of treatment or disposal of hazardous, medical, or toxic wastes are
performed on the subject site.
3.16 Wells
REM's site walk-through did not discover any irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned
wells, groundwater-monitoring wells, dry wells, septic wells oil wells, gas wells, domestic
water wells, or other monitoring wells on the subject premises.
3.17 Underground Pipelines
REM's site inspection did not reveal any evidence of underground pipelines beneath the
ground of subject property, other than public utility lines such as sewer, power, and electric
lines, for which public "dig-alert" service would easily identify upon 48-hour telephone notice
in advance.
3.18 Boilers & HVAC Systems
The subject site buildings' water heater and HVAC system is comprised of boiler and
radiators, while the primary fuel source is utilized from natural gas, electricity. No UST fuel or
petroleum product stored in tank is used for said heater and HVAC operation.
16
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
3.19 Visual Indication of Spills, Leakage, Staining
REM's site inspection did not reveal any evidence of on-site or off-site spills, leakages, or
staining significant enough to pose immediate environmental concern onto the subject
property. No significantly stained catch basins, drip pads, or sumps were observed. There
were no major spills around surface drains, pipes, gutters, spouts, or tubes, if any, at the time
of site investigation.
3.20 Soil Staining or Surface Staining on Unpaved/Natural Lands
No staining or surface staining on the bare soil or unpaved lands were identified during the
site investigation.
3.21 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons
No visible evidence of wetlands, such as pits, ponds, lagoons, or any other water bodies, was
observed within the subject property's boundary lines.
3.22 Herbicides/Pesticides
No evidence of herbicide or pesticide use on the subject property was observed during the
inspection.
3.23 Radon
Radon sources can be found from earth and rock beneath building structures, well water, and
building materials themselves. Though there is no immediate health effect, it is believed to
account for approximately 10% of lung cancer deaths in the United States. Estimated
national average is 1,5 picocuries per liter of air, however, levels as high as 200 picocuries
per liter in some commercial buildings can be found. USEPA and California Department of
Health Services' Radon Survey Interim Results report shows different U.S. regions according
to general geological and climate information, where Region 9 includes Imperial, Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and San Diego Counties.
According to the California EPA, Los Angeles and Riverside County is classified as a "Zone
2" county having a predicted average screening level between 2-4 picocuries per liter of air.
Orange and San Diego County is under Zone 3, having the level less than 2 picocuries/L,
and Ventura County as Zone 1 has the level greater than 4 picocuries/L.
17
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
If a property region reportedly has radon concentration below 4 picocuries per liter of air in
99.5% of homes within the region, then, it is not likely impacted by the presence of radon
gas, considering EPA action limit of 4 picocuries per liter of air volume. REM is not
contracted to perform the testing of radon level on the subject property, thus the delineation
of radon level is beyond the scope of the service covered in this report.
18
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA
4. NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
4.1 Adjacent/Adjoining Businesses
For the scope of this assessment, properties are defined and categorized based upon their
physical proximity to the subject property. An adjoining property is any real estate property
whose border is contiguous or partially contiguous with the subject properties, or that would
be if the properties were not separated by a roadway, street, public thoroughfare, river, or
stream.
Adjoining properties of the subject site are as follows:
North: Immediately by Garvey Avenue, and then by City Tech Auto Repair with the
street address 8419 Garvey Avenue to the east and Alta Dena Market to the
west
East: By used car sales with the street address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue to the
north and residences to the south
South: By residences
West: Immediately by Delta Avenue, and then by Auto Zone to the north and a plant
nursery to the south
4.2 Historical Hazardous Substance Usage in Neighboring Properties
REM's field engineer contacted the following public agencies to find any records of former
operation of gasoline USTor any other hazardous substances in the vicinity of the subject
premises.
• City of Rosemead Building Department
• County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LACDPW), Environmental
Programs Division
• Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region
No locations in the neighborhood within close proximity are considered to pose any
environmental threat to the subject property, based upon data obtained via NETR
governmental records database and the conducted agency records search.
19
PHASE i ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA
5. GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH AND POTENTIAL OFF-SITE
CONTAMINATION SOURCES
5.1 Historical Background and Scope of Coverage
Since the early 1970s, environmental agencies have been tracking the compliance of many
facilities with the various laws that have been promulgated to halt the pollution of air, land
and water. More recently, records have been maintained documenting spills of hazardous
materials and the locations of known waste sites or regulated waste handling facilities. The
following sections summarizes REM's review of database search of available records at the
local, state and federal level and highlights the approximate location of such sites with
respect to the subject properly.
The conducted government record search was performed to aid:
1) Identification of facilities, located within a one-mile radius of the subject property, which
might pose a potential threat to the subsurface environment at the subject property; and
2) Identification of any environmental violation notices associated with activities conducted
at the subject property itself. The following lists were reviewed for sites within one mile of
the property:
5.2 Database Sources
A. Federal Sources
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS)
• U.S. EPA, National Priority List (NPL)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Federal TSD Facilities
• Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
• CERCLA Site Enforcement Tracking System
• RCRA Violators List (CORRACTS)
20
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
• U.S. EPA Federal Enforcement Docket
• Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
• No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)
The CERCLIS is the EPA compilation of sites for which the EPA has evidence of, or is investigating, a release or
threatened release, of hazardous substances which may be subject to review in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund
Act). Sites to be included are identified primarily by the reporting requirements of hazardous substances
including degreasing solvents, oily waste, acid solutions, alkaline solutions, and heavy metal solutions,
Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facilities and releases larger than specific Reportable Quantities (RQ),
established by EPA.
An NPL site is an uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste site identified for priority remedial action under
Superfund Program. Such prioritized sites with significant risk to human health and the environment receive
remedial funding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
RCRA generator/TSD list is a compilation of hazardous waste generating facilities which have obtained an
identification number from EPA.
ERNS is a national computer database used to store information on unauthorized release of oil and hazardous
substances. The program is a cooperative effort of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Transportation Research and Special Program Administration's National Transportation System Center and the
National Response Center. There are primarily five Federal statues that requires release reporting: CERCLA
Section 103; the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III Section 304; the Clean Water
Act of 1972 (CWA) Section 311 (b)(3); and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1974 (HMTA) Section
1808(b).
RCRA Violators List (CORRACTS): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 provides for
"Cradle to Grave" regulation of hazardous wastes. RCRA requires regulation of hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and TSD sites. Evaluation to potential violations, ranging from manifest requirements to hazardous
waste discharges, is typically conducted by the US EPA. This database is also known as Corrective Action
Report (CORRACTS).
Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS): TRIS compiles database for a property having had a release of
chemical compound, whose listing reflects permitted air releases rather than a release to soil or groundwater.
21
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
B. California State Sources
• State of California Office of Planning and Research (CORTESE), the State of California
equivalent of CERCLIS
• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
• Annual Work Plan (previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan), the State of California
equivalent of NPL
• California Historical Abandoned Site Survey Program (CALSITES)
CALSITES: The Historical Abandoned Site Survey (MASS) Program, formerly the California Abandoned Sites
Program Information System - ASPIS, identified certain potential hazardous waste sites. The identification of
these sites was generally not made via sampling and site characterization, but as a result of file searches and
windshield surveys.
No Further Action sites are also on the CALSITE list that have been marked for no further action by the California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) in accordance with California
Health & Safety Code.
CORTESE: This database is a consolidation of information from various sources It is maintained by the State
Office of Planning and Research and lists potential and confirmed hazardous waste or substances sites.
LUST(s): The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Information System is maintained by the State
Water Resource Board pursuant to California Health & Safety Code.
SWIS (Solid Waste Information System): As legislated under Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Act of 1972, the California Waste Management Board maintains list of certain facilities, i.e. Active solid waste
disposal sites, Inactive or Closed solid waste disposal sites and Transfer facilities.
AW (Annual Work Plan previously known as Bond Expenditure Plan): The California Health & Safety code
requires the California EPA to develop a site-specific expenditure plan as the basis for an appropriation of
California Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 funds The Agency is also required to update
annually and report any significant adjustments to the Legislature on an ongoing basis. The plan identifies
California hazardous waste sites targeted for cleanup by responsible parties, the California and the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency over the next coming years
22
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
C. Regional Sources
• LUST - Regional
• Toxic Releases (NT)
• Toxic Pits (TPC)
• California Regional Water Resources Control Board, Solid Waste Assessment Test
(SWAT)
• Well Investigation Program
NT {Toxic Releases): The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards or local Department of Health &
Safety Services keeps track of toxic releases to the environment- These lists are known as Unauthorized
Releases, Spill, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanups, Non-Tank Releases, Toxic List or similar, depending on the
local agency
TPC (Toxic Pits): The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act places strict limitations on the discharge of liquid hazardous wastes
into surface impoundment, toxic ponds, pits and lagoons. Regional Water Quality Control Boards are required to
inspect all surface impoundments annually, in addition, every facility was required to file a Hydrogeological
Assessment Report. Recent legislation allows the Department of Health Services to exempt facilities that closed
on or before December 31, 1985, if a showing is made that no significant environmental risk remains.
SWAT (Solid Waste Assessment Test): This program requires that disposal sites with more than 50,000 cubic
yards of waste provide sufficient information to the regional water quality control board to determine whether or
not the site has discharged hazardous substances which will impact the environment. Site operators are required
to file Solid Waste Assessment Test reports on a staggered basis. Operators submit water quality tests to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, describing surface and groundwater quality and supply; and the geology
within 1 mile of the site. Air quality tests are submitted to the local Air Quality Management District or Air Pollution
Control District
D.Other Sources
• RCRA-Generator
• RCRA-TSD Facilities
• SWLF (Solid Waste Landfill)
. Water Wells (USGS)
RCRA-G: The EPA regulates generators of hazardous material through the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). All hazardous waste generators are required to notify EPA of their existence by submitting
the Federal Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form or a State equivalent form. The notification form
provides basic identification information and specific waste activities.
RCRA-D: The EPA regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous material through the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All hazardous waste TSD facilities are required to notify EPA of their
existence by submitting the Federal Notification of Regulated Waste Activity Form or a State equivalent form.
23
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
SWLF: The California Waste Information system database consist both open as well closed and inactive solid
waste disposal facilities and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery
Act of 1972. Generally the California Integrated Waste Management Board learns of locations of disposal
facilities through permit applications and from local enforcement agencies.
Water Wells: The Groundwater Site Inventory (GWSI) database was provided by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), which contains information over 1,000,000 wells and other groundwater which the USGS has
studied, used or otherwise had reason to document through the course of research
5.3 Case Study References
A. Case-Closure
If sites are listed on the California Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) database with
a "case closed (no further remedial actions required)" status, it shall be interpreted as follows.
The identified contamination at such sites was mitigated to a degree that the governing
agency believed that these sites do not pose apparent concern/threat to the subsurface
environment of the neighboring area.
B. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Reports on LUFT's
According to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/ University of California Reports on
Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT's), approximately ninety percent of dissolved
petroleum products is found less than 280 feet in distance from the origination source, and
most of these plumes are either stable or decreasing in distance. And seventy percent of
the plume is in shallow groundwater less than 25 feet below the ground surface.
C. Groundwater Flow Gradient
Environmentally-concerned sites located not directly at the up-gradient from the subject site
can be deleted from anticipated target sites, since contamination from identified sites is
unlikely to migrate along the groundwater flow direction to affect the subsurface environment
underneath the subject site (Section 2.6 - Hydrogeologic Setting).
24
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
5.4 Potential Source of Contamination
Sites identified on referenced agency listing within the one-mile radius from the subject
property are tabulated in Appendix C of this Report. As shown in Appendix C, there are
following three Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Spills sites within the immediate
vicinity (< 1/8 mile) of the referenced subject property being targeted as potential
environmental concern:
Laidlaw Harvey Davidson, 8399 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 250 feet west-
northwest of the subject property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with a "Case
Closed" status.
Laidlaw Harvey Davidson, 8351 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 450 feet west-
northwest of the subject property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with an "Open"
status.
Corsair LLC, 8350 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 400 feet west of the subject
property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with a "Case Closed (No Further Action
Required)" status.
However, as discussed in Section 2.6, groundwaterflow direction around the subject site
area is generally towards west. Therefore, all above three sites are located in a generally
groundwater flow down-gradient direction from the subject site. Hence, it is unlikely for the
identified environmental concern (derived from UST leakage/spill) associated with above
three sites to significantly impact the subsurface environment of the subject property.
5.5 UST, Disposal Sites, and Generators
As also summarized in Appendix C, there are no sites listed on RCRA hazardous waste
generators list and on permitted active Underground Storage Tank (UST)/Aboveground
Storage Tank (AST) database compiled by the State Water Resources Control Board,
located within 1/8-mile radius of the subject site.
25
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
6. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The subject site covers following five sub-lots (see Figure 2 for location/configuration of
each sub-lot) in the south-central portion of the city of Rosemead, California:
8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-001) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular-shaped lot located at the southeastern corner of (the E-W trending) Garvey
Avenue and (the N-S trending) Delta Avenue
8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-002) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular-shaped lot immediately to the east of the 8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-003) - a roughly N-S trending
rectangular shaped-lot immediately to the east of the 8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot
2746-2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-008) - a roughly E-W trending
rectangular shaped-lot mainly to the south of above three sub-lots (8404,8408-8412, and
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lots)
2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-009) - a roughly E-W trending
rectangular shaped-lot immediately to the south of the 2746-2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot
General descriptions of five site sub-lots are as follow:
8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-001) ~ is with a two-story
commercial/ apartment building (commercial store/office on the ground floor and
apartments on the second floor) in the north-central portion of the sub-lot, a small storage
structure at the southeastern corner of the sub-lot, and asphalt-paved yards/parking lots
for remaining portions of the sub-lot
8408-8412 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-002) - with a single-story
commercial building (8412 Garvey Avenue) and its associated concrete-paved parking lot
in the northern 1/3 of the sub-lot and a single-story family dwelling (8408 Garvey Avenue)
and its associated yard in the southern 2/3 of the sub-lot
8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-003) - currently asphalt-paved
parking lot
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
2746-2748 Delta Ave sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-008) - with a single-story duplex
(2746-2748 Delta Avenue) and its associated yard/separately detached parking garage in
the western !4 of the sub-lot, and separately fenced asphalt-paved parking lot with a
parking garage type structure at its northeastern corner in the eastern Yz of the sub-lot
2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lot (with old APN 5283-005-009) - with two single-story
family dwellings (2736 Delta Avenue to the south and 2740 Delta Avenue to the north)
and their associated yard in the western Yz of the sub-lot, and separately fenced asphalt-
paved parking lot (connecting to asphalt-paved parking lot in the eastern % of the 2746-
2748 Delta Avenue sub-lot with no fence separating them) in the eastern Y* of the sub-lot
No pits, ponds, swamps, dry wells, or lagoons were observed on the subject property.
No apparently significant surface staining was observed on the paved/unpaved out-
door areas and building areas of the site.
At the time of site inspection on April 19, 2012, American's Tio School Constitution
Center occupied the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building, and the 8412
Garvey Avenue commercial building was apparently unoccupied. The second floor
apartment units of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building, the 8408 Garvey Avenue single-
family dwelling (SFD), the 2746-2748 Delta Avenue duplex, the 2740 Delta Avenue
SFD, and the 2736 Delta Avenue SFD were either occupied by residences or
unoccupied. The 8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot was occupied as for-sale used car
parking lot of used car sales business with the street address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue
to the east of the northern half of the site. The eastern halves of 2746-2748 Delta
Avenue and 2736-2740 Delta Avenue sub-lots were separately fenced and occupied as
non-for-sale (like employee) car parking lot of used car sales business with the street
address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue to the east of the northern half of the site. Current
site operations generally do not involve using/generating significant quantities of
hazardous materials/wastes.
Bases on various historic sources listed in Section 2.4, development/occupancy history
of three site parcels can be summarized below:
Prior to the 1910's-Remained undeveloped
1910's to 1920's - Developed into generally residence setting with all currently on-site
buildings, except the 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building
(constructed in 1935), constructed
The middle 1930's -The 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building was constructed
and the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building was
converted to its current commercial setting
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA
The middle 1930's to recent - Various markets, liquor stores, restaurants, etc, have
been occupying the ground floor of the 8404 Garvey
Avenue building and the 8412 Garvey Avenue
commercial building
Around the middle 1950's - The 8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot, and likely along with the
eastern halves of 2746-2748 Delta Avenue and 2736-2740
Delta Avenue sub-lots, were likely converted from residential
setting to their current vehicle parking lot setting APN 5283-
005-003 (8416 Garvey Avenue), along with the eastern
halves of APN 5283-005-008 & 009, were apparently
converted from residential setting to their current vehicle
parking lot setting
Based on above site occupancy summary, no past or current occupants were/are likely
to exhibit business operations involving usage/generation of significant quantities of
hazardous material/wastes.
The conducted government records search reveals that the subject property is not
recognized being listed on the following environmental regulatory database record
research (NETR database): NPL, RCRA-TSD, CERCLIS, NFRAP, RCRA-G, ERNS,
CORRACTS, CORTESE, CALSITES, LUST, UST, and SWF.
Based on the conducted government records search, there are following three Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)/Spills sites within the immediate vicinity (< 1/8 mile) of
the referenced subject property being targeted as potential environmental concern:
Laidlaw Harvey Davidson, 8399 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 250 feet west-
northwest of the subject property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with a
"Case Closed" status.
Laidlaw Harvey Davidson, 8351 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 450 feet west-
northwest of the subject property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with an
"Open" status.
Corsair LLC, 8350 Garvey Avenue, is located approximately 400 feet west of the subject
property. This site is listed on LUST/Spills databases with a "Case Closed (No Further
Action Required)" status.
However, groundwater flow direction around the subject site area is reportedly generally
towards west. Therefore, all above three sites are located in a generally groundwater
28
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
flow down-gradient direction from the subject site. Hence, it is unlikely for the identified
environmental concern (derived from UST leakage/spill) associated with above three
sites to significantly impact the subsurface environment of the subject property.
In conclusion, we have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment I n
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E-1527-05 of 8404-8416
Garvey Avenue & 2736-2748 Delta Avenue, Rosemead, CA, the property. This
assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the property. No Phase II investigation is recommended for the subject
property.
29
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
7. LIMITATIONS AND CERTIFCATION STAMP
The opinion expressed herein is based on the information collected during our study, our
present understanding of the site conditions and our professional judgment in light of such
information at the time of preparation of this opinion. The report is a professional opinion
work, and no warranty is either expressed, implied or made as to the conclusions, advice
and recommendations offered in this report.
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised,
under similar circumstances, by reputable Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or
similar localities.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are considered valid as of
the present date. However, changes in the conditions of the property can occur with the
passage of time, due to natural process or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.
In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standard may occur. REM is not
responsible for conditions found at or beneath the subject property or adjacent properties.
Accordingly, portions of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by the changes
beyond our control.
This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the client, and opinions/recommendations
contained in this report apply only to conditions existing when services were performed and
are intended only for the client, purposes, locations, time frames, and project parameters
indicated.
Report Prepared by:
ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Robin Chang, Ph.D., P.G.
Project Manager
30
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
8. QUALIFICATION STATEMENT FOR PERSONNEL CONDUCTING
THE PHASE I ASSESSMENT
Since Robin Chang, the personnel conducting the Phase I Environmental assessment is a
California State Registered Professional Geologist, Robin Chang declares that, to the
best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental
Professional as defined in Sec. 312.10 of 40 CFR. I have the specific qualifications based
on education, training, experience, and license to assess a property of the nature, history,
and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed all appropriate
inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
ROBIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Robin Chang, Ph.D., P.G.
Project Manager
31
I
I
I
I
APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
APPENDIX A
FIGURES & PHOTOS
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
ruses Monterey Park, California, United States 01 Jul 1981
"ter
A/
A
10O Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
FIGURE 2
RECENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SITE AND ITS
VICINITY GENERAL LAYOUT
=_ ^—- , '^ ;_
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
FIGURE 3
SITE PHOTOS
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
Photo 1
The west side view of the subject site (facing north-northeast); from right to left (from
south to north), the 2740 Delta Avenue SFD, the 2748-2748 Delta Avenue duplex, and
the 8404 Garvey Avenue restaurant/apartment building
Photo 2
Frontage (north side) view of the 8404 Garvey Avenue building (facing southwest)
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
Photo 3
The 8412 Garvey Avenue commercial building (facing southeast)
Photo 4
The 8408 Garvey Avenue SFD on the back (to the south) of the 8412 Garvey Avenue
commercial building (facing south)
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA
Photo 5
Viewing the 8416 Garvey Avenue sub-lot; facing south-southwest
Photo 6
The southern half of the 8404 Garvey Avenue sub-lot; facing southeast
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
Photo 7
Separately fenced asphalt-paved lot for not-for-sale (like employee) vehicle parking for
used car sales business with the street address 8420/8424 Garvey Avenue to the east of
the northern half of the site in the southeastern portion of the site (facing northeast)
Photo 8
City Tech Auto Repair on the right (to the east) and Alta Dena Market on the left (to the
west), across Garvey Avenue, to the north of the site (facing northeast)
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
Photo 9
Residence to the south of the site; facing east
Photo 10
Auto Zone on the right (to the north) and plant nursery on the left (to the south), across
Delta Avenue, to the west of the site; facing north-northwest
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
APPENDIX B
COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RECORDS SUMMARY
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Assessor's Hv&z Page S&arcn Menu FsedfcacK Help'FAQs
of the Assessor
E
CopyigM - LA Assosso r
52830050,034
a
Properly Assessment lnforma!iori
Records for this property are kept at.the East Dislnct Office
"How freguenUyjs the information updated on iftis site?" and ol her FAQs.)
Property information
Assessors ID No.
Site Address
Property Type
Region / Cluster
Tax Rate Area (TRA)
Click Here to View Asieuor's Map
5283-005-001
8404 GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD CA 91770
Commercial / Industrial
27 /27638
03985
[Click H«e to View Index Map)
Recent Safe Information
Latest Sale Date
indicated Sale Price
Search for Recent Sates
20!! Roil Values
Recording Date
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Fixtures
Homeowners' Exemption
Real Estate Exemption
Personal Property Exemption
Fixture Exemption
11/20/2007
$743.302
$361,910
SO
SI)
SO
JO
so
Annud! TAXO
11 have a question regarding mv property lax
Estimate Supplemental T.
Property Boundary Description
TRACT # 5242 EX OF ST LOT 1
Building Description!s)
Improvement 1
Square Footage 2,520
Year Built / Effective Year Built 1927 /1931
Bedrooms / Bathrooms 0/0
Units 2
Recent Parcel Change Activity
Depending upon the Effective and/or Completion Date of the parcel change,
information on individual AINs may no longer (or not yet) be available online.
• = both the Parcels Display and Parcel Detail are available
+ = Parcel Detail only (no Parcels Display)
, = Parcels Display only (no Parcel Detail)
(blank) = Recent Parcel Change Activity only
Deletion of AIM 5283405-001
Effective Date: 02/16/2011
Status: Completed 07/24/2O11
old - 5283-005-001
* oW - 5283-Q05-Q02 *
* old - £ 3-005-003 *
• Old - 5283-005-008 *
• OW - 5 283-005-009 "
new-
# old AINs 5 # new AINs: 1
(What is mv property's_PlN?i
dick Here for Another Search
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f£f\g
Office of t
*'«CoUnty ~
We Assessor M
j
i M
BJH
Records for (his property are keot at the East District Office
1 "How Jreouenllv is Ihe jnlormation updated on this ate7" and other FAOs i
Property Information
Assessor's ID No 5283-CW5-OO2
Copyright -
ROSEMEAD CA 91770
Property Type Commercial / Industrial
Region / Cluster 27 / 27638
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 039B5
dick Here to View Ass«ior'j i
(Click Here to View Index Map)
Recent Sale Information
Latest Sale Date
Indicated Sale Price
Search for Recent Sal
20! i ^0)1 Values
Recording Date
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Fixtures
Homeowners' Exemption
Real Estate Exemption
Personal Property Exemption
Fixture Exemption
OlCfc Here (or S011 AnnudJ T.
> I have a Question regarding my
re Supplemental T;
Property Boundary Descriptor
TRACT # 5242 EX OF ST LOT 2
11/20/2O07
$708.443
$134,306
$0
SO
$0
sn
so
to
Bui/ding Description;:
Square Footage
Year Built / Effective Year Built
Bedrooms / Bathrooms
Units
Improvement 1
936
1935/1936
0/0
0
Decent Psrce; Change Activity
Depending upon the Effective and/or Completion Date of the parcel change.
information on individual AINs ma/ no longer (or not yet) be available online.
* = both the Parcels Display and Parcel Detail are available
* = Parcel Detail only (no Paroete Display)
. = Parcels Display onty (no Panxl Detail)
(blank) = Recent Parcel Change Activity only
Deletion of AIN 5283-005-002
Effective Date: 02/1672011
Status: Completed 07/24/2011
* Old - 5265-005-001 *
old - 5283-005-002
* Okj-5283-005-003 *
* old - :-2g3-005-OG3 *
old - S283-OQ5.-OP9 *
new - 52S3-OQ5-G28
# old AINs: 5 tfnewAtNs 1
Click Here for Another S
I
I
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
/ ^ uo* Wig***3 CoirtMv •* * . 1
UC ' jt*V *^ 7 J ,X*~\ jr.A'— ^f~~ 1 1• nffir^ <T* *tf? assessor i^ ^ - ^ ' • •4HB2.W1 i ' i >U
/!iii
1 I Records for this orooertv are keot at the Easi District Office[i "How freouenllv is the mfonnaiion uodaied on this sileT and otner FAQ;
£ Property information
Assessor's ID No 5283-QOS-OQ3
Copynoht-
ROSEMEADCA91770
Property Type Single Family Residence
Region / Cluster 27127638
lax. Rate Area (TRA) 03985
Click Here to View Assessor's M*p
(Click Here to View Index Map)
Recent Sale information
Latest Sale Date
Indicated Sale Price
Search for Recent Sal
20? 1 Roll Values
Recording Date 11/20/2007
Land $599,767
Improvements $0
Personal Properly $0
Fixtures JO
Homeowners' Exemption $0
Real Estate Exemption ¥0
Personal Property Exemption JO
Fixture Exemption JO
CK* Here Io' /OTf Annual T^Mtt
•'! have a que_stion regarding_my property lax payment'
Estimate Supplemental
Property Bcur-aary Description
TRACT # 5242 EX OF ST LOT 3
Budding Description^)
No building information is available for this parcei.
Reccnl Pared' Change Activity
Depending upon the Effective and/or Completion Date of the parcel change,
information on individual AINs may no longer (or not yel) be available online.
• - both the Parcels Display and Parcel Detail are available
* = Parcel Detail only (no Parcels Display)
. = Parcels Display only (no Parcel Detail)
(blank) = Recent Parcel Change Activity only
Deletion of AIN 5283-005-003
Effective Date: 02/16/2011
Status: Completed 07/24/2011
• old - 5283-005-001 "
• old-52e3-005-CQ2 "
Old - 5283-005-003
* old - 5233-Q05-OQ3 *
* old - 5283:005-003 "
new - 525:
# old AINs 5 # new AINs: 1
(Whal is mv property's Pl
Click Here for Another Sea
Copyright - LA Assvsaoi
.for this property are kept at the East District Office
"How Irequgnliv is the in I urination updated onthis ate"?" and other FAQs '.
Property .'nformation
Assessor's ID No
Site Address
5283-005-008
2746 DELTA AVE
ROSEMEAD CA 91770
Property Type Single Family Residence
Region / Cluster 11 /11167
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 03985
Click Here to View Assessor's Map
(Okk Here to View index M»p|
Recent Sa.'e Information
Latest Sale Date
Indicated Sale Price
Search for Recent Sales
20! 1 RoJJ Values
Recording Date
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Fixtures
Homeowners' Exemption
Real Estate Exemption
Personal Property Exemption
Fixture Exemption
11/20/2007
$348,400
$43.500
$0
SOso
soso
so
Ck* Here tot /DTI Annusl TWWS
I have a question regarding my properly lax payment'i
Estimate Supplemental T
Property Boundary Description
TRACT # 5242 LOT 9
Suilding Description's)
Improvement 1
Square Footage 1,136
Year Built / Effective Year Built 1922/ 1922
Bedrooms / Bathrooms 0/0
Units 1
Recent Parce! Change Activity
Depending upon the Effective and/or Completion Date of the parcel change.
information on individual AINs may no longer (or not yet) be avadable online.
' = both the Parcels Display and Parcel Detail are available
*• = Parcel Detail only (no Parcels Display)
. - Parcels Display only (no Parcel Detail)
(blank) = Recent Parcel Change Activity onry
Deletion of AIN 5283-005-008
Effective Date: 02/16/2011
Status: Completed 07/24/2011
" Old - 5253-005-001 *
' Old - 5283-005^002 *
* Old - 5283-005-
old - 5283-OOWKW
• Old - 5283-005-009 *
new - 5263-005-021
# Old AINs 5 # new AINs: 1
iWnal is my ptorjejta's PIN?]
CHek Here for Another S«
*.Er s ounty
ofttte Misessor
a -^ •-"•
Records for this property are kept at th^East District Office
i "How treouenllv is Ifie information updated on tins ale"?" and othm_^AQs )
Property information
Assessor's ID No.
Site Address
5283-005-009
2736 DELTA AVE
ROSEMEADCA91770
Property Type Multi-Family Residential
Region / Cluster 11/11402
Tax Rate Area (TRA) 03965
Click Here to View Ajseiior'j Map
[Click Here to View Index Map)
Recent Sale Information
Latest Sale Date
Indicated Sale Price
Search for Recent Sal
11/20/2007
$645,826
$92,271
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20 II Roll Values
Recording Date
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Rxtures
Homeowners' Exemption
Real Estate Exemption
Personal Property Exemption
Fixture Exemption
Ot* Hen: tor 70JJ
ji have a question regarding fiy property ta. ',-- . — '•'•'
Estimate Supplemental Taxes
Property Boundary Description
TRACT # 5242 LOTS 1 0 AND LOT 1 1
Suiiding Description;.^
Improvement 1
Square Footage 658
Year Built / Effective Year BuiH 1910 / 1927
Bedrooms / Bathrooms 2/1
Units I
Improvement 2
Square Footage 668
Year Built / Effective Year Built 1 923 / 1 925
Bedrooms / Bathrooms 2/1
Units 1
Recent ^arcci Change Activity
Depending upon the Effective and/or Completion Date of the parcel change.
information on individual AINs may no longer (or not yet) be available online.
* - both the Parcels Display and Parcel Detail are available
> = Parcel Detail only (no Parcels Display)
. = Parcels Display only (no Paicel Detail)
(Wank) = Recent Parcel Change Activity only
Deletion of AIN 5283-005-009
Effective Date: 02/16/2011
Status: Completed 07/24/201 1
" Old- 5283-Q05-QC1 *
" Old- 52S3-005-002 *
* Old - 5283-005-003 "
" Old - 528j-jC5-Qg5 •
Old - 5283-005-009
new - 5283-005-026
# old AINs: 5 # new AINs: 1
(What is my^property's PIN?!
<_„*
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
8404-8416 GARVEY AVE & 2736-2748 DELTA AVE, ROSEMEAD, CA
APPENDIX C
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCH DATABASE
8404 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
Prepared for: REM
Monday, April 23, 2012
Environmental Radius Report
2055 E. Rio Satado Pkwy
Tempe, AZ 85381
480-967-6752
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CERCLIS NFRAP
This database returned no results for your area.
As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" NFRAP have been
removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was
found, contamination was removed quickly without the site being placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not
serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration.
EPA has removed these NFRAP sites from CERCLIS to lift unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these
properties. This policy change is part of EPA"s Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private
investors and affected citizens promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites.
RCRA COR PACTS Facilities
This database returned no results for your area.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act {RCRA). The EPA maintains the Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) database of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities that are undergoing "corrective action." A "corrective action
order" is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008(h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents
into the environment from a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can
be required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predated RCRA.
RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities
This database returned no results for your area.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates hazardous waste under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA"s RCRA Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the
point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilites database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities that
report generation, storage, transportation, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Permitted Treatment,
Storage, Disposal Facilities (RCRA-TSD) are facilities which treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste.
NPL Delisted
This database returned no results for your area.
National Priorities List (NPL} is the list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation.
EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response is required to protect human health or the
environment. Under Section 300.425(e) of the National Contingency Plan (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), a site may be
deleted where no further response is appropriate if EPA determines that one of the following criteria has been met:
EPA, in conjunction with the State, has determined that responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate
response action required.
EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that all appropriate Superfund-financed responses under CERCLA
have been implemented and that no further response by responsible parties is appropriate.
A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
Since 1986, EPA has followed these procedures for deleting a site from the NPL:
The Regional Administrator approves a "close-out report" that establishes that all appropriate response actions have
been taken or that no action is required.
The Regional Office obtains State concurrence.
EPA publishes a notice of intent to delete in the Federal Register and in a major newspaper near the community
involved. A public comment period is provided.
EPA responds to the comments and, if the site continues to warrant deletion, publishes a deletion notice in the Federal
Register.
Sites that have been deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further Superfund-financed remedial action in the unlikely
event that conditions in the future warrant such action. Partial deletions can also be conducted at NPL sites.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
This database returned no results for your area.
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national computer database used to store information
on unauthorized releases of oil and hazardous substances. The program is a cooperative effort of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the Department of Transportation Research and Special Program Administration"s John Volpe
National Transportation System Center and the National Response Center. There are primarily five Federal statutes
that require release reporting: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
section 103; the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA) Title HI Section 304; the Clean Water Act of1972(CWA) section 311(b)(3); and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act of 1974(HMTA section 1808(b).
US Toxic Release Inventory
This database returned 3 results for your area.
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical
releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as
federal facilities. TRI reporters for all reporting years are provided in the file.
US Toxic Release Inventory
Location
Distance to site
Info URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
NAICS Codes
SIC Codes
SIC Descriptions
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
NAICS Descriptions
34.06061, -118.0731
3984 ft/0.75 mi E
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query detail.disp program faci!ity?p registr
yjd=110025404676
110025404676
M ARGUESD& CO INC
2628 RIVER AVE
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770
325998
2899
CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS, NOT ELSEWHERE
CLASSIFIED
ICIS, TRIS
ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE ACTIVITY, FORMAL ENFORCEMENT
ACTION, TRI REPORTER
01-JUN-11
20-OCT-06
ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND
PREPARATION MANUFACTURING.
Location
Distance to site
Info URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
NAICS Codes
SIC Codes
SIC Descriptions
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
NAICS Descriptions
34.06084, -118.0723
4219ft/0.8mi E
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii query detail.disp program facility ?p registr
y id=11'0000478368
110000478368
MARGE CARSON INCORPORATED
9056 E. GARVEYAVE.
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770-3335
337000, 337121,337215
2000, 2511, 2512
WOOD HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, EXCEPT UPHOLSTERED, WOOD
HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE, UPHOLSTERED
AIRS/AFS, BR, EIS, NEI, TRIS
AIR MINOR, CRITERIA AND HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
INVENTORY, HAZARDOUS WASTE BIENNIAL REPORTER, TRI
REPORTER
10-SEP-10
01-MAR-OO
SHOWCASE, PARTITION, SHELVING, AND LOCKER
MANUFACTURING., UPHOLSTERED HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE
MANUFACTURING.
US Toxic Release Inventory
Location
Distance to site
Info URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
NAICS Codes
SIC Codes
SIC Descriptions
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
NAICS Descriptions
34.05695, -118.069
5548 ft/1.05 mi E
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_ query_detail.disp_program_facility?p registr
y id=110000861979
110000861979
LA VICTORIA FOODS INCORPORATED
9133 EAST GARVEY AVENUE
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770-3336
311421
2032, 2033, 2035
CANNED FRUITS, VEGETABLES, PRESERVES, JAMS, AND JELLIES,
PICKLED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, VEGETABLE SAUCES AND
SEASONINGS, AND SALAD DRESSINGS
TRIS
TRI REPORTER
04-AUG-OO
01-MAR-OO
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CANNING.
US RCRA Generators (CESQG, SQG, LOG)
This database returned 32 results for your area.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA maintains a database of facilities, which generate hazardous waste or
treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous wastes.
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous
waste, or 1 kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste.
Small Quantity Generators (SQG) generate more than 100 kilograms, but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous
waste per month.
Large Quantity Generators (LOG) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste, or more than 1
kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste.
US RCRA Generators (CESQG, SQG, LOG)
Location
Distance to site
tnfo URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
34.06564, -118.0906
1804 ft/0.34 mi NW
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii query detail.disp program faci!ity?p registr
y__id=110002833113
110002833113
TATUNG AUTO PARTS DISTRIBUTORS
3156 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770
RCRAINFO
SQG
08-AUG-10
01-MAR-OO
Location
Distance to site
Info URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
34.06265, -118.0928
2022 ft 70.38 mi W
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii query detail.disp program facility?p registr
y id=110002794405
110002794405
T AND L AUTO REPAIR
8064EGARVEYAVE
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770-2421
RCRAINFO
SQG
05-AUG-10
01-MAR-OO
Location
Distance to site
Info URL
EPA Identifier
Primary Name
Address
City
County
State
Zipcode
Programs
Program Interests
Updated On
Recorded On
34.05762, -118.0906
2178 ft 70.41 mi SW
http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii query detail.disp program_facility?p registr
y id=110002702232
110002702282
CELL-CRETE CORP
2518 N. SAN GABRIEL BLVD
ROSEMEAD
LOS ANGELES
CA
91770-3252
RCRAINFO
SQG
08-AUG-10
01-MAR-OO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
US ACRES (Brownfields)
This database returned no results for your area.
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in
these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and
working lands. The Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) is an online database for
Brownfields Grantees to electronically submit data directly to The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
I
f
r
i
US CERCLIS (Superfund)
This database returned no results for your area.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) investigates known or suspected uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous substance facilities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA maintains a comprehensive list of these facilities in a database known as the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). These sites
have either been investigated or are currently under investigation by the EPA for release or threatened release of
hazardous substances. Once a site is placed in CERCLIS, it may be subjected to several levels of review and
evaluation and ultimately placed on the National Priority List (NPL).
CERCLIS sites designated as "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS.
NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an intitia! investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was
removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination was not serious enough to
require Federal Superfund Action or NPL consideration.
r
r
r
i
i
i
r
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
US CERCLIS (Superfund NPL)
This database returned no results for your area.
The Superfund Program, administered under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) is an EPA Program to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites
throughout the United States. The NPL (National Priorities List) is the list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States
and its territories- The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
US NPDES
This database returned no results for your area.
The NPDES module of the Compliance Information System (ICIS) tracks surface water permits issued under the
Clean Water Act. Under NPDES, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the United
States are required to obtain a permit. The permit will likely contain limits on what can be discharged, impose
monitoring and reporting requirements, and include other provisions to ensure that the discharge does not adversely
affect water quality.
CA Registered Underground Storage Tanks
e
Li;'
e
a
This database returned 16 results for your area.
Underground storage tanks containing hazardous or petroleum substances are regulated under Subtitle I of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The State Water Resources Control Board"s GeoTracker
database provides the list of permitted Underground Storage Tanks (UST).
CA Registered Underground Storage Tanks
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Permitting Agency
Address
City
Zip
County
34.06269, -118.0816
1379 ft/0.26 mi E
CIRCLE K STORES #5221
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
8609 GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD
91770
Los Angeles
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Permitting Agency
Address
City
Zip
County
34.05537, -118.0865
2541 ft 70.48 mi S
SCE - GENERAL OFFICE GARAGE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
8380 KLINGERMAN ST OFC
ROSEMEAD
91770
Los Angeles
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Permitting Agency
Address
City
Zip
County
34.06921, -118.0906
2853 ft / 0.54 mi NW
ARCO PRODUCTS #05212
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
3366 SAN GABRIEL BLVD
ROSEMEAD
91770
Los Angeles
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Permitting Agency
Address
City
Zip
County
34.05349,-118.082
3459 ft 70.66 mi SE
SCE - GENERAL OFFICE 2
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2255 WALNUT GROVE AVE OFC
ROSEMEAD
91770
Los Angeles
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Permitting Agency
Address
City
Zip
County
34.06015, -118.0749
3480 ft 7 0.66 mi E
IRISH COMMUNICATIONS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2649 STINGLE AVE
ROSEMEAD
91770
Los Angeles
CA Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Ini
O
This database returned 26 results for your area.
Information on Leaking underground storage tanks containing hazardous or petroleum substances is maintained in
the State Water Resources Control Board"s GeoTracker database.
CA Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06285, -118.0866
241 ft/0.05 mi NW
LAIDLAW HARLEY DAVIDSON
8399
E GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Completed - Case Closed
2008-01-29
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / Lubricating
Under Investigation
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06284,-118.087
330 ft/0.06 mi NW
LAIDLAW HARVEY DAVIDSON
8351
E GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Open
2001-09-27
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / Lubricating
Under Investigation
CA Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06255, -118.0876
455 ft / 0.09 mi W
CORSAIR LLC
8350
GARVEYAVEE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Completed - Case Closed
1998-05-14
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Aviation
Soil
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
File Location
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06231, -118.0902
1239 ft/0.23 mi W
ARCO#1285
8204
GARVEY AVE E
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Open - Remediation
2001-03-14
LOS ANGELES RWQCB (REGION 4)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Regional Board
Gasoline
Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water)
CA CERCLIS Equivalent
•t--
a
I
1
This database returned 1 results for your area.
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP)
EnviroStor database identifies CERCLIS equivalent sites as "State Response". These are sites known or suspected to
contain uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous substance facilities.
CA CERCLIS Equivalent
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Type
Site Type 2
Site Area (acres)
Project Manager
Project Supervisor
Envirostor ID
Status
Status Date
Past Uses
Contaminant
Funding Source
Address
City
State
Zip Code
County
34.0715, -118.0688
6214ft/1.18mi NE
Aerojet General Corp.
State Response
State Response or NPL
72
S. STEVEN HARIRI
John Scandura
60000742
Active
2007-10-1900:00:00
AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING/MAINTENANCE, AEROSPACE
ROCKET TESTING/LAUNCH, ENGINE TES
OTH, SED, SOIL, SV, UE
Responsible Party
9100 Flair Drive
El Monte
CA
91731
LOS ANGELES
CA NPL Equivalent
This database returned no results for your area.
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP)
EnviroStor database identifies sites on the National Priority List (NPL). This is the equivalent of the Federal NPL
identifying facilities and study areas with known contamination that are given priority for remedial action.
CA Hazardous Waste Sites
a
34.1
This database returned 1 results for your area.
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP)
EnviroStor database identifies Hazardous Waste Sites. These include...
All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with
Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and
Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.
All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.
All sites included in the Abandoned Site Assessment Program.
CA Hazardous Waste Sites
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Type
Site Type 2
Site Area (acres)
Project Manager
Project Supervisor
Envirostor ID
Status
Status Date
Past Uses
Contaminant
Funding Source
Address
City
State
Zip Code
County
34.0715, -118.0688
6214ft/1.18mi NE
Aerojet General Corp.
Slate Response
State Response or NPL
72
S.STEVEN HARIRI
John Scandura
60000742
Active
2007-10-19 00:00:00
AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING/MAINTENANCE, AEROSPACE
ROCKET TESTING/LAUNCH, ENGINE TES
OTH, SED, SOIL, SV, UE
Responsible Party
9100 Flair Drive
El Monte
CA
91731
LOS ANGELES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CA Activity Use Restrictions
This database returned no results for your area.
Activity and Use Limitations (AULs), also known as Environmental Land-Use Controls (LUCs) - An AUL is a
restriction, covenant or notice concerning the use of real property, which is imposed on real property. AULs and LUCs
are further categorized as Institutional Controls (ICs) and Engineering Controls (ECs). An 1C is a legal or regulatory
restriction on the use of a property, limiting the use of groundwater and excavations or preventing such businesses as
day care centers or schools on the property. An EC involves physical means of restricting site access or use in order to
prevent the spreading or exposure of a contaminant. Frequently implemented engineering controls include requiring
black top on the surface, building of structures to prevent exposure or even notices to the public that are posted on the
grounds warning of contaminants.
CA Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups
This database returned 48 results for your area.
The Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup (SLIC) Program is responsible for site investigation and corrective action
involving sites not overseen by the Underground Tank Program and the Well Investigation Program. This program is
not restricted to particular pollutants or environments; rather, the program covers all types of pollutants (such as
solvents, petroleum fuels, and heavy rnetals) and all environments (including surface and water, groundwater, and the
vadose zone). Upon confirming that an unauthorized discharge is polluting or threatens to pollute regional water
bodies, the Regional Board oversees site investigation and corrective action. Statutory authority for the program is
derived from the California Water Code, Division 7, Section 13304. Guidelines for site investigation and remediation
are promulgated in State Board Resolution No. 92-49 entitled Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup
and Abatement of Discharges under Water Code Section 13304.
CA Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06285, -118.0866
241 ft/0.05 mi NW
LAIDLAW HARLEY DAVIDSON
8399
E GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Completed - Case Closed
2008-01-29
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / Lubricating
Under Investigation
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06284, -118.087
330 ft 70.06 mi NW
LAIDLAW HARVEY DAVIDSON
8351
E GARVEY AVE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Open
2001-09-27
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / Lubricating
Under Investigation
CA Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06255, -118.0876
455 ft/0.09 mi W
CORSAIR LLC
8350
GARVEY AVE E
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Completed - Case Closed
1998-05-14
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Aviation
Soil
Location
Distance to site
Site Name
Site Street Number
Site Street Name
Site City
Site State
Site Zip
Site County
Status
Status Date
Lead Agency
Local Agency
File Location
Contaminant
Contaminated Medium
34.06231, -118.0902
1239 ft/0.23 mi W
ARCO#1285
8204
GARVEYAVEE
ROSEMEAD
CA
91770
Los Angeles
Open - Remediation
2001-03-14
LOS ANGELES RWQCB (REGION 4}
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Regional Board
Gasoline
Other Groundwater (uses other than drinking water)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CA Solid Waste Landfills
This database returned no results for your area.
The Solid Waste Landfill List (SWLF) database is provided by the California Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
and consists of both open as well as closed inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations pursuant to the
Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972.
CA Oil and Gas Wells
This database returned 9 results for your area.
The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Thermal Resources (DOGGR) was created to
serve the needs of the state, local governments, and industry by regulating statewide oil and gas activities with uniform
laws and regulations. The DOGGR supervises the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of
onshore and offshore oil, gas, and geothermal wells, preventing damage to: (1) life, health, property, and natural
resources; (2) underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; and (3) oil, gas and geothermal
reservoirs.
CA Oil and Gas Wells
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.0641, -118.0779
2571 ft/0.49 mi E
03720575
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
19.000
1S
11W
Cordova
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.07062, -118.0939
3837 ft/0.73 mi NW
03705501
Exxon Mobil Corp
24.000
1S
12W
South San Gabriel Unit No. 1
2
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.07099, -118.0943
4018 ft/0.76 mi NW
03705500
Exxon Mobil Corp
24.000
13
12W
South San Gabriel Unit No. 1
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
CA Oil and Gas Wells
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.06222, -118.0723
4166ft/0.79 mi E
03705790
Rancho Oil Corp., Ltd.
30.000
1S
11W
Harmon
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.05083, -118.0885
4257 ft/0.81 miS
03705676
Mobil Oil Corp.
25.000
1S
12W
Lieber
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.06734, -118.069
5477 ft /1.04 mi E
03705498
Exxon Mobil Corp
19.000
1S
11W
Rosemead Oil Unit
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
CA Oil and Gas Wells
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.05497, -118.103
5763 ft/1.09 mi SW
03705787
R. F. D. Petroleum Co.
26.000
1S
12W
Haig
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.04888, -118.0977
6031 ft/1.14miSW
03705269
CelitoOil Corp., Ltd.
25.000
1S
12W
Jepson
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
Location
Distance to site
API Number
Operator
Section
Township
Range
Lease Name
Well Number
Field Name
Baseline Meridian
Spud Date
Abandonment Date
34.05183, -118.0699
6219 ft/1.18 mi SE
03720665
Harry J. Riskas
30.000
1S
11W
Rosemead
1
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SB
0000/00/00
0000/00/00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CA Voluntary Cleanup Sites
This database returned no results for your area.
The Department of Toxic Substances Controls (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP)
EnviroStor database identifies Voluntary Cleanup sites. These sites include low threat level properties with confirmed or
unconfirmed releases. The responsible parties have requested that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup
activities and agreed to offset DTSC expenses.
APPENDIX D
Hydrology Report
APPENDIX E
Noise Report
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
ROSEMEAD GARDEN PLAZA
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:
Giroux & Associates
1820 E Garry St., #211
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Prepared for:
Phil Martin & Associates
Attn: Phil Martin
3002 Dow Avenue, Suite 122
Tustin, CA 92780
Date:
December 3, 2014
Project No.: P14-051 N
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 1
NOISE SETTING
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air.
Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters
that describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or
crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In
particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize
the loudness of an ambient sound level.
The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound pressure levels. Although decibels are most
commonly associated with sound, "dB" is a generic descriptor that is equal to ten times the
logarithmic ratio of any physical parameter versus some reference quantity. For sound, the
reference level is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity.
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire auditory
spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions by weighting sounds within the range
of maximum human sensitivity more heavily in a process called “A-weighting,” written as dB(A).
Any further reference in this discussion to decibels written as "dB" should be understood to be
A-weighted.
Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level
equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ), or alternately, as a statistical
description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation
period. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion
during the evening and at night, state law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB
increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day-
night) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL metric has gradually
replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical.
CNEL-based standards are generally applied to transportation-related sources because local
jurisdictions are pre-empted from exercising direct noise control over vehicles on public streets,
aircraft, trains, etc. The City of Rosemead therefore regulates the noise exposure of the receiving
property through land use controls.
For “stationary” noise sources, or noise sources emanating from private property, such as a parking
structure, the City does have legal authority to establish noise performance standards designed to
not adversely impact adjoining uses. These standards are typically articulated in the jurisdictional
Municipal Code. These standards recognize the varying noise sensitivity of both transmitting and
receiving land uses. The property line noise performance standards are normally structured
according to land use and time-of-day.
NOISE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
The City of Rosemead considers noise compatibility standards in evaluating land use projects. A
proposed land use must be shown to be compatible with the ambient noise environment, particularly
for noise sources over which direct City control is preempted by other agencies. Such sources
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 2
include vehicle traffic on public streets, aircraft or trains. Since the City cannot regulate the noise
level from the source, it exercises its land use decision authority to insure that noise/land use
incompatibility is minimized.
Table 1 shows the noise/land use compatibility guideline for the City of Rosemead, as contained in
the Noise Element of the General Plan. The City of Rosemead considers noise exposures for
residential use to be “normally acceptable” if the maximum exterior noise level is 60 dB CNEL or
less. Exterior residential noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed if a noise analysis is
conducted to identify possible noise reduction measures. Noise levels above 70 dB CNEL are
considered normally unacceptable except in unusual circumstances for residences. These standards
apply to outdoor recreational use at backyards, patios or balconies.
Because retail/commercial/office uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise
exposure standard for less sensitive land uses is generally less stringent. Unless commercial
projects include noise-sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, noise exposure is generally not
considered a commercial facility siting constraint for typical project area noise exposures. The City
of Rosemead noise compatibility guidelines recommend 65 dB CNEL as “normally acceptable” and
75 dB CNEL as a “conditionally acceptable” exterior noise exposure for commercial uses such as
the proposed retail and office uses.
An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards
(CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms.
In 1988, the State Building Standards Commission expanded that standard to include all habitable
rooms in residential use, included single-family dwelling units. Since normal noise attenuation
within residential structures with closed windows is 25-30 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 70-
75 dB CNEL allows the interior standard to be met without any specialized structural attenuation
(dual paned windows, etc.), but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air
conditioning in order to maintain a comfortable living environment.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 3
Figure 1
City of Rosemead Noise Compatibility Guidelines
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 4
NOISE STANDARDS
For noise generated on one property affecting an adjacent use, the City of Rosemead limits the amount
of noise crossing the boundary between the two uses. For regulated on-site sources of noise
generation, the Rosemead noise ordinance prescribes limits that are considered an acceptable exposure
for residential uses in proximity to regulated noise sources. The L50 metric used in the Rosemead
noise ordinance is the level exceeded 50% of the measurement period of thirty minutes in an hour.
One-half of all readings may exceed this average standard with larger excursions from the average
allowed for progressively shorter periods. The larger the deviation, the shorter the allowed duration
up to a never-to-exceed 20 dB increase above the 50th percentile standard. Nighttime noise levels
limits are reduced by 5 dB to reflect the increased sensitivity to noise occurring during that time
period.
The City L50 noise standard for residential uses is 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.), and 45 dB
at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). For commercial uses the L50 standard is 65 dB during the day (7 a.m. – 10
p.m.), and 60 dB at night (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.). These noise standards for residential and commercial uses
are shown in Table 1. In the event that the ambient noise level exceeds any of the noise standards,
the standards shall be increased to reflect the ambient noise level.
The Ordinance also restricts hours of construction to hours of lesser noise sensitivity with heavy
equipment to not operate from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the week and on Saturdays, and to not exceed 85
dB at any residential property line (8.36.030.A.3). Construction is not permitted on Sundays or Federal
Holidays.
Table 1
ROSEMEAD NOISE ORDINANCE LIMITS
(Exterior Noise Level not to be Exceeded)
Residential Use Commercial Use
Maximum Allowable
Duration of Exceedance
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
7 AM to 10 PM
(Daytime)
10 PM to 7 AM
(Nighttime)
30 minutes/Hour (L50) 60 dB 45 dB 65 dB 60 dB
15 minutes/Hour (L25) 65 dB 50 dB 70 dB 65 dB
5 minutes/Hour (L8) 70 dB 55 dB 75 dB 70 dB
1 minute/Hour (L1) 75 dB 60 dB 80 dB 75 dB
Never (Lmax) 80 dB 65 dB 85 dB 80 dB
Source: Municipal Code Section 8.36.060
BASELINE NOISE LEVELS
Short term on-site noise measurements were made in order to document existing baseline levels in
the project area. These help to serve as a basis for projecting future noise exposure from the project
upon the surrounding community and noise from the community on the project. Noise monitoring
was conducted on Monday, November 10, 2014, at approximately 2:30-3:30 p.m., at two locations.
Measurement locations are shown in Figure 2 and summarized below in Table 2.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 5
Table 2
Measured Noise Levels (dBA)
Site No. Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L33 L50 L90
1 60 77 44 62 58 56 46
2 69 79 56 72 70 67 59
Monitoring experience shows that 24-hour weighted CNELs can be reasonably well estimated from
rush peak hour noise readings. CNELs are approximately equal to afternoon hour Leq plus 2 dB
(Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement, 2009).
Meter 1 location is representative of noise levels along the Delta Avenue frontage. At
approximately 50 feet from the Delta Avenue centerline, existing noise levels are expected to be
approximately 63 dB CNEL.
Meter 2 was located on the corner of Garvey and Delta Avenues and readings at this site are
indicative of the worst case existing on site noise levels. Observed noise levels at Meter 2 are
approximately 72-73 dB CNEL at 50 feet from centerline.
The City of Rosemead considers CNELS of up to 70 dB to be conditionally acceptable for
residential use with the requirement of a noise analysis. Depending on setback for the project
residential component, upgraded acoustical mitigation could be required to meet this threshold for
residences with a line of sight to Garvey Avenue.
Noise levels of up to 75 dB CNEL are considered to be conditionally acceptable for commercial
use. However, as noted previously, unless commercial projects include noise-sensitive uses such as
outdoor dining, exterior noise exposure is generally not considered a commercial facility siting
constraint.
NOISE IMPACTS
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Noise impacts are considered significant if:
1. They create violations of noise standards, or,
2. They substantially worsen an already excessive noise environment, or,
3. They substantially increase an existing quiet environment even if noise standards are not
violated by the proposed action.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 6
Figure 2
Noise Meter Locations
Three characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that
proposed for the development of the Garvey Garden Plaza project. Construction activities,
especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. Such
impacts would be important for any nearby noise-sensitive receptors, such as any existing
residential uses. Upon completion, project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in area-
wide noise levels throughout the project area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to
insure that the project does not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding
community, as well as to insure that the project site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise
resulting from the ambient noise environment acting on the project. Finally, the project analysis
needs to examine noise from the proposed commercial uses upon proposed on-site and existing
adjacent residential uses.
According to the current CEQA Appendix G guidelines, noise impacts are considered potentially
significant if they cause:
Meter 2
Meter 1
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 7
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Noise
levels exceeding the City of Rosemead Noise Standards would be considered significant.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
CEQA Guidelines also identify potential impact significance due to aircraft noise. There are no
airports in very close proximity to the site where aircraft noise would be an issue.
The term "substantial increase" is not defined by any responsible agency. The limits of
perceptibility by ambient grade instrumentation (sound meters) or by humans in a laboratory
environment is around 1.5 dB. Under ambient conditions, people generally do not perceive that
noise has clearly changed until there is a 3 dB difference. A threshold of 3 dB is commonly used to
define "substantial increase." An increase of +3 dBA CNEL in traffic noise would be consistent a
significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction
equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term
construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated by large, earth-moving
equipment sources for demolition and grading. During construction and paving, equipment is
generally less noisy.
Construction noise tends to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by demolition and/or earth-
moving sources and later for finish construction and paving. Figure 3 shows the typical range of
construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building phases.
The earth-moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about
90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are
atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance, or about 6 dB in 100 feet of
propagation. The impact radius pre-supposes a clear line-of-sight and no other machinery or
equipment noise that would mask project construction noise. With buildings and other barriers to
interrupt line-of-sight conditions, the potential “noise envelope” around individual construction sites
is reduced. Construction noise impacts are, therefore, somewhat less than that predicted under
idealized input conditions.
The nearest residential use to the project site is less than 50 feet from the project surface parking lot
but more than 65 feet from the closest on-site structure with a much larger setback to the remainder
of the site. It is not likely that the heaviest equipment would operate closest to the property line, but
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 8
Figure 3
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 9
if were to occur, the City of Rosemead construction noise standard of 85 dB could be exceeded for
short periods of time. However, construction of the proposed 6-foot high block wall at the
residential use perimeter would assist in mitigating possible construction noise intrusion for the
nearest off-site sensitive uses. All adjacent sensitive uses are one-story.
Therefore, construction noise is potentially significant but is mitigated by construction of the
proposed 6-foot high perimeter wall prior to the commencement of construction activities and by
adherence to the allowable hours of operation of 7 a.m.to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Construction is not permitted on Sundays and Federal Holidays.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY VIBRATION
Construction activities generate ground-borne vibration when heavy equipment travels over
unpaved surfaces or when it is engaged in soil movement. The effects of ground-borne vibration
include discernable movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves
or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. Within the “soft” sedimentary surfaces of much of
Southern California, ground vibration is quickly damped out. Because vibration is typically not an
issue, very few jurisdictions have adopted vibration significance thresholds. Vibration thresholds
have been adopted for major public works construction projects, but these relate mostly to structural
protection (cracking foundations or stucco) rather than to human annoyance.
Vibration is most commonly expressed in terms of the root mean square (RMS) velocity of a
vibrating object. RMS velocities are expressed in units of vibration decibels. The range of
vibration decibels (VdB) is as follows:
65 VdB - threshold of human perception
72 VdB - annoyance due to frequent events
80 VdB - annoyance due to infrequent events
100 VdB - minor cosmetic damage
To determine potential impacts of the project’s construction activities, estimates of vibration levels
induced by the construction equipment at various distances are presented below in Table 3.
Table 3
Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Approximate Vibration Levels (VdB)*
Equipment 25 feet 50 feet 65 feet 100 feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 75
Loaded Truck 86 80 78 74
Jackhammer 79 73 71 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 46
* (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Assessment, Chapter 12, Construction, 1995)
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 10
The on-site construction equipment that will create the maximum potential vibration is a large
bulldozer. The stated vibration source level in the FTA Handbook for such equipment is 81 VdBA
at 50 feet from the source. With typical vibrational energy spreading loss, the vibration annoyance
standard second is met at 56 feet. Effects of vibration perception such as rattling windows could
only occur at the nearest residential structures, though vibration resulting from project construction
would not exceed cosmetic damage thresholds.
Large bulldozers will not likely operate directly at the shared property line with the perimeter
homes. A parking area is planned closest to the south of the site adjacent to the residential uses. The
nearest on site structure is about 65 feet from the southern property line. Regardless, any fine
grading at the property line should be performed with small bulldozers which are seen above to
have 30 VdB less vibration potential. Therefore, to ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection
the following mitigation measure is recommended:
Only small bulldozers shall be permitted to operate within 56 feet of the nearest residential
structures.
Construction activity vibration impacts are judged as less-than-significant.
OFF-SITE PROJECT-RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS
Long-term noise concerns from the residential and commercial uses at the project site can be
derived from vehicular operations on project area roadways. These concerns were addressed using
the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the federal roadway noise model (the
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108). The model calculates the
Leq noise level for a reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for
site-specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers.
Table 4 summarizes the 24-hour CNEL level at 50 feet from the roadway centerline along six
roadway segments. The noise analysis utilizes data from the project traffic analysis, prepared by the
traffic consultant for this project. Four traffic scenarios were evaluated; existing conditions and
2017 “with project” and “without project”. The data used for analysis was provided in the traffic
report prepared by VA Consulting for this project.
As shown in Table 4, project implementation in the opening year does little to change the traffic
noise environment. Because the area is mostly built out, addition of project traffic to area roadways
does little to the traffic noise environment. The largest project related impact is +0.1 dB CNEL at
50 feet from the roadway centerline and most segments show no discernable impact. The
cumulative analysis, which compares “future with project” to “existing” conditions, shows a
maximum impact of +0.2 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerline. These increases are much
less than the +3 dB significance threshold. Project only related traffic noise increases and
cumulative traffic noise increases are less-than-significant.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 11
Table 4
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
(dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline)
Segment 2014 No Project 2014 With
Project
2017 No
Project
2017 With
Project
Garvey Avenue Willard-Charlotte 71.9 72.0 72.1 72.1
Charlotte-San
Gabriel 72.3 72.4 72.5 72.5
Delta Avenue S. of Garvey 63.2 63.2 63.3 63.4
Walnut Grove Avenue S. of Garvey 70.7 70.7 70.8 70.8
N. of Garvey 71.2 71.2 71.3 71.3
N. of Hellman 72.5 72.5 72.7 72.7
Fern Avenue Dearle-Delta 60.9 61.0 61.1 61.1
San Gabriel Boulevard N. of Dorothy 72.9 72.9 73.0 73.0
Project Impact
(dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline)
Segment 2014 Project
Only
2017 Project
Only
Cumulative
Impacts*
Garvey Avenue Willard-Charlotte 0.0 0.0 0.2
Charlotte-San Gabriel 0.1 0.1 0.2
Delta Avenue S. of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.2
Walnut Grove
Avenue S. of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1
N. of Garvey 0.0 0.0 0.1
N. of Hellman 0.0 0.0 0.1
Fern Avenue Dearle-Delta 0.1 0.1 0.2
San Gabriel
Boulevard N. of Dorothy 0.0 0.0 0.1
*The difference between “2017 with project” and “existing” traffic noise levels
ON-SITE PROJECT-RELATED VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS
Although the City of Rosemead guidelines allows exterior noise levels of up to 70 dB CNEL, a
noise level of 65 dB is the level at which ambient noise begins to interfere with one's ability to carry
on a normal conversation at reasonable separation without raising one's voice. A noise exposure of
65 dB CNEL is typically the exterior noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential
dwellings in California.
Both Garvey Avenue and Delta Avenue bound the project site. The future with project traffic noise
along Delta Avenue is expected to be about 63 dB CNEL at 50 feet from centerline such that
proximity is not considered a siting constraint. However, the Garvey Avenue roadway segment
adjacent to the project site is calculated to reach 72 dB CNEL at 50 feet from roadway centerline.
Many of the residential units in the Garvey Garden Plaza site are on top of the commercial façade
and are sited along Garvey Avenue.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 12
The project residential units along Garvey Avenue are on upper levels and many units have
balconies facing the roadway. The following setbacks from the Garvey Avenue centerline would be
needed to achieve a 65 or 70 dB CNEL noise level:
Distance to 65 dB CNEL 250 feet
Distance to 70 dB CNEL 80 feet
The closest proposed patio is approximately 60 feet from the Garvey Avenue centerline. At 60 feet
the exterior noise loading would be expected to be 71 dB CNEL. If the patios on these units are
required to meet established noise thresholds, noise protection would be required. A shield would
break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source. A transparent noise shield (e.g.,
plexi-glass) along the patios facing Garvey Avenue would reduce noise by at least 5 dBA and while
still permitting view. However, a residual noise level of 66 dB CNEL is still slightly above the
noise standard.
Because a shield must break the line-of-sight between the receiver and noise source, there is no
simple mitigation measure to only reduce noise levels by the needed 1 dBA. A 5.5 foot plexi-glass
wall will reduce noise levels by an additional 1dBA, which would result in a 65 dBA CNEL noise
level.
However, recreational uses at the Garvey Garden Plaza may be considered to be common outdoor
space sited in the interior of the complex. The central garden and recreational facility area can be
considered common use space. This area is noise protected by the perimeter structures such that noise
levels are expected to be well within the 65 dBA CNEL limit. Most jurisdictions do not require noise
protection for individual recreational space if noise-protected common space is provided, which is the
case with this project.
The interior residential noise standard is 45 dB CNEL. For typical wood-framed construction with
stucco and gypsum board wall assemblies, the exterior to interior noise level reduction is as follows:
Partly open windows – 12 dB
Closed single-paned windows – 20 dB
Closed dual-paned windows – 30 dB
Use of dual-paned windows is required by the California Building Code (CBC) for energy
conservation in new residential construction.
Interior standards will be met as long as residents have the option to close their windows. Where
window closure is needed to shut out noise, supplemental ventilation is required by the CBC with
some specified gradation of fresh air. Central air conditioning or a fresh air inlet on a whole house
fan would meet this requirement.
Because commercial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard
for less sensitive land uses is generally is less stringent. Unless commercial projects include noise-
sensitive uses such as outdoor dining, noise exposure is generally not considered a commercial
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 13
facility siting constraint for typical project area noise. At this time the project does not include any
outdoor commercial use dining space.
SITE OPERATIONAL NOISE
The project proposes a mixed use site with a small retail and office use component. Office noise is
considered passive and is not expected to create a noise nuisance for the on or off site residential
uses. A small retail space is similarly not anticipated to negatively impact sensitive uses. Neither the
retail or office component would entail activities that extend into the late night.
CONCLUSIONS
Project-related off-site traffic noise impacts on existing streets are less than significant.
Traffic noise from Garvey Avenue may exceed City standards for outdoor recreational deck space
fronting the roadway. Enclosure of unit balconies facing Garvey Avenue with a 5.5-foot transparent
glass or plastic shield will reduce noise by 5-6 dB CNEL and thereby achieve 65 dB CNEL.
Alternatively recreational space may be considered to be common outdoor space (the central garden
and recreational facility) sited in the interior of the complex. This area is noise protected by the
perimeter structures such that noise levels are expected to be well within the 65 dB CNEL contour.
Most jurisdictions do not require noise protection for individual recreational space if noise-protected
common space is provided, which is the case with this project.
Habitable residential interior space will be adequately noise protected to achieve 45 dB with only
the ability to close windows at perimeter units and construction of the 5.5-foot transparent glass or
plastic shield enclosure along each balcony with a line-of-sight to Garvey Avenue. Where window
closure is needed for policy compliance, supplemental fresh air ventilation will be provided at rates
specified in the California Building Code.
Short-term construction noise intrusion shall be mitigated by compliance with the City of Rosemead
Noise Ordinance. The allowed hours of construction are from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through
Friday. Construction noise could exceed 85 dB at the nearest sensitive use but is nevertheless
minimized by the following conditions:
• All equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Equipment and materials shall be staged in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during all project construction.
• All construction-related activities shall be restricted to the construction hours outlined in the
City’s Noise Ordinance.
• Haul truck and other construction-related trucks traveling to and from the project site shall be
restricted to the same hours specified for the operation of construction equipment. To the extent
feasible, haul routes shall not pass directly by sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
Rosemead Garden Plaza Noise Report 14
To ensure adequate vibration annoyance protection the following mitigation measure is
recommended:
Only small bulldozers shall be permitted to operate within 56 feet of the nearest project
structures.
APPENDIX F
Traffic Report
VA CONSULTING, INC.
Engineers•Planners•Surveyors
46 Discovery, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: 949-474-1400
Fax: 946-261-8482
www. vaconsultinginc.com
GARVEY GARDEN PLAZA MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ROSEMEAD, CA
FEBRUARY 2015
Prepared for:
Phil Martin & Associates
4860 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 203
Irvine, CA 92620
Prepared By:
Keith R. Rutherfurd, TE
Josh D. Park, EIT
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\TOC_Revised.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
II. EXISTING STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ....................................................................4
III. PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC ............................................................................20
Trip Generation........................................................................................................20
Trip Distribution and Assignment..............................................................................20
Project Site Access..................................................................................................21
Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Volumes........21
Existing (2014) with Project Traffic Volumes..............................................................27
Baseline 2017 with Project Traffic Volumes...............................................................27
IV. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS...............................................................................................34
Existing (2014) and Baseline 2017 Conditions...........................................................34
Existing (2014) with Project Conditions.....................................................................34
Baseline 2017 with Project Conditions......................................................................35
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis.................................................................................35
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................39
Study Area Circulation Impacts.................................................................................39
On-Site Circulation...................................................................................................39
Traffic Signal Warrants.............................................................................................40
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements Counts and
Roadway Link ADT’s
APPENDIX B – Level of Service Computation Reports (ICU Calculations)
APPENDIX C – Level of Service Computation Reports (HCM Calculations)
APPENDIX D – Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\TOC_Revised.doc
List of Exhibits
PAGE
Figure 1 Project Location and Vicinity Map.....................................................................2
Figure 2 Garvey Garden Plaza Site Plan........................................................................3
Figure 3 Existing Study Area Traffic Controls and Intersection Geometrics......................6
Figure 4A Existing (2014) AM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................10
Figure 4B Existing (2014) PM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................11
Figure 5 Existing (2014) Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
and Volume to Capacity Ratios.......................................................................12
Figure 6A Baseline 2017 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................13
Figure 6B Baseline 2017 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................14
Figure 7 Baseline 2017 Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
and Volume to Capacity Ratios.......................................................................15
Figure 8 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment.........................................................23
Figure 9A Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes...........24
Figure 9B Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement and Roadway Link Volumes...........25
Figure 10 Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes...........................................................26
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\TOC_Revised.doc
List of Exhibits (cont.)
PAGE
Figure 11A Existing (2014) with Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................28
Figure 11B Existing (2014) with Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................29
Figure 12 Existing (2014) with Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
and Volume to Capacity Ratios.......................................................................30
Figure 13A Baseline 2017 with Project AM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................31
Figure 13B Baseline 2017 with Project PM Peak Hour Turning Movement
and Roadway Link Volumes...........................................................................32
Figure 14 Baseline 2017 with Project Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
and Volume to Capacity Ratios.......................................................................33
List of Tables
PAGE
Table 1A Level of Service Descriptions (ICU) - Signalized..............................................16
Table 1B Level of Service Descriptions (HCM) - Unsignalized........................................17
Table 2 Existing (2014) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections)...........................18
Table 3 Baseline 2017 Level of Service at Study Area Intersections.............................19
Table 4 Project Trip Generation..................................................................................22
Table 5 Existing 2014 with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections............37
Table 6 Baseline 2017 with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections..........38
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to evaluate potential traffic circulation issues
associated with the proposed Garvey Garden Plaza mixed-use development project and to
identify mitigation measures if necessary to meet City of Rosemead circulation network level of
service (LOS) criteria.
The location of the proposed Garvey Garden Plaza Project is shown on Figure 1. The project
site is approximately 1.14 acres located at the southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey
Avenue in the City of Rosemead. The project site is currently developed with commercial and
multi-family (duplex) and single-family detached housing units. All existing non-residential
structures on the site appear to be vacant. It is not known how many of the existing residences
are occupied. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis the existing site has been considered
vacant with no trip reduction applied to Project traffic forecasts to account for demolition of the
existing site uses. The Project would develop the property with 46 apartment units and 11,860
square feet of retail and office use. The proposed project site plan is shown on Figure 2. The
project is to be completed in 2017 as a single phase.
SECTION I
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
4
EXISTING STUDY AREA CONDITIONS
Figure 3 shows the existing roadway network and intersections surrounding the Project site.
The following intersections are included in the study area for analysis:
1. San Gabriel at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
2. San Gabriel Boulevard at I-10 Eastbound Ramps (stop controlled);
3. San Gabriel Boulevard at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
4. San Gabriel Boulevard at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
5. Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized);
6. Walnut Grove Avenue at I-10 Westbound Ramps (stop controlled);
7. Walnut Grove Avenue at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
8. I-10 Eastbound off-ramp at Hellman Avenue (signalized);
9. Walnut Grove Avenue at Garvey Avenue (signalized); and
10. Walnut Grove Avenue at Fern Avenue (signalized).
Figure 3 also shows existing intersection geometrics and controls and the number of through
lanes for roadways surrounding the project area. The Project site is in a developed, urban
environment surrounded by commercial, retail, office, restaurant, and single-family and multiple-
family housing land uses.
The project fronts Delta Avenue which is a local street per the City General Plan Circulation
Element. Delta Avenue will provide project access at two site driveways and has a 36-foot curb-
to-curb width with parking allowed on both sides of the street. Garvey Avenue borders the
project site on the north and is designated a Major Arterial roadway per the City General Plan.
Garvey Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with a center striped or raised median and
provides two travel lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions. Where not prohibited,
parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and the posted speed limit is 35 mph.
San Gabriel Boulevard borders the project study area on the west and is a north-south
designated Major Arterial roadway. San Gabriel Boulevard provides two through lanes in each
direction with a continuous striped center two-way left-turn lane and separate left-turn lanes at
intersections. Throughout the I-10 interchange area, San Gabriel Boulevard has a raised center
median. Where not prohibited, parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and the posted
speed limit is 35 mph.
SECTION II
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
5
Walnut Grove Avenue borders the project study area on the east and is a north-south
designated Minor Arterial roadway. Walnut Grove Avenue provides two through lanes in each
direction with separate left-turn lanes at the intersections of Garvey Avenue and Hellman
Avenue. Throughout the I-10 interchange area, Walnut Grove Avenue has a raised center
median. Where not prohibited, parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway and the posted
speed limit is 40 mph.
Hellman Avenue is an east-west two-lane undivided collector roadway located in the northern
portion of the study area. Where not prohibited, parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway
and the posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Fern Avenue is a 36-foot curb-to-curb east-west local street on the southern border of the study
area. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Approximately two-thirds of a mile to the north, the I-10 Freeway runs east-west parallel to
Garvey Avenue. The I-10 Freeway interchanges with the local circulation system at San Gabriel
Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue within 1-mile of the Project Site.
The project site is also served by Metro bus lines 70 and 770 and by Rosemead Explorer fixed-
route shuttle service. There are existing bus stops on the northeast and southwest corners of
the Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue intersection with concrete bus pads and shelters.
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
7
Figures 4A and 4B show existing (September 2014) weekday am and pm peak hour intersection
turning movement volumes within the project study area, respectively. Figure 5 shows existing
weekday 24-hour volumes on roadway segments. Traffic Data was collected in mid-September
2014 for this study by National Data Collection and Surveying Services (NDS) and is included in
the appendix. Schools were in session when this data was collected.
The Project is anticipated to be completed in one phase in 2017. Baseline 2017 traffic volumes
have been developed by factoring existing 2014 volumes by an ambient growth rate of 1% per
year (for 3 years) and then adding traffic from identified future development projects. This
growth rate reflects the increased traffic volumes associated with the recovering economy which
had been suppressed in the preceding years. The identified projects whose cumulative traffic
volumes have been considered in this analysis include the Garvey 168 Plaza, Garvey Market
Plaza, Garvey Del Mar Plaza, and 9048 Garvey Avenue Mixed-Use Development which are
located to the northeast, far west, west, and far east of the Project site along Garvey Avenue at
Willard Street, Garvey Avenue near New Avenue, Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue, and
Garvey Avenue at Sullivan Avenue, respectively. Figures 6A and 6B show Baseline 2017
weekday am and pm peak hour intersection turning movement volumes within the project study
area, respectively. Figure 7 shows Baseline 2017 weekday 24-hour volumes on roadway
segments.
To provide a detailed analysis of existing peak hour and Baseline 2017 year traffic operation
within the study area and to provide a baseline for existing and year 2017 level of service (LOS),
signalized intersection LOS was determined using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
method and unsignalized intersection LOS was determined using the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) unsignalized operations method. All of the existing stop-controlled study area
intersections are located within I-10 Freeway interchange areas operated by Caltrans. The
HCM operations method is consistent with Caltrans requirements for analysis of unsignalized
intersections.
In ICU analysis, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared to the capacity of the
intersection. ICU’s are calculated for the peak hours of traffic and include the unique features of
the intersection such as turning movement volumes, intersection lane configurations, and traffic
signal phasing. ICU is generally expressed as a percent. The percentage represents that
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
8
portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic
and provides a guide to the number and types of lanes required at the intersection. This
percentage can also be used to determine a level of service (LOS) based on the utilized
capacity of the intersection. Table 1A provides ICU level of service ranges and descriptions.
The City of Rosemead target minimum Level of Service is LOS D.
Using the 2000 HCM operations method for unsignalized intersections, level of service is based
on worst-case delay for the controlled approaches as shown on Table 1B. However, Caltrans
uses average control delay as the basis of LOS which is generally significantly lower than worst-
case delay. Therefore, delay and LOS associated with both values are shown for unsignalized
intersections in this report.
Table 2 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area
intersections, separated by signalized/unsignalized, under existing 2014 conditions and Table 3
for 2017 Baseline conditions. Table 2 shows that all study area intersections except two, are
currently operating at Level of Service D or better during am and pm peak hours with existing
2014 traffic volumes and improvements. The San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue
intersection is operating at LOS E in the pm peak hour and the I-10 westbound ramps at Walnut
Grove Avenue are operating at LOS F during both peak hours. However, the pm peak hour ICU
value at the San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue intersection is 0.91 and only exceeds
the limit for LOS D by 0.01. The poor existing LOS reported at the I-10 westbound ramps at
Walnut Grove Avenue is associated with the worst-case movement, the eastbound left-turn from
the westbound loop off-ramp, which is a non-project related traffic movement. The average
delay at the intersection is 13.0 seconds per vehicle with LOS B during the am peak hour, and
22.4 seconds per vehicle with LOS C during the pm peak hour.
Table 3 shows that study area intersection LOS for Baseline 2017 conditions is the same as
existing 2014 conditions with one exception, the I-10 eastbound loop off-ramp to San Gabriel
Boulevard (NB), which is a non-project movement. The LOS for this movement is predicted to
decline to LOS E from existing LOS D in the pm peak hour. However, the calculated worst-case
delay for this movement exceeds the threshold for LOS D by only 0.3 seconds. Based on
average delay, the pm peak hour LOS is A with 8.5 seconds delay per vehicle. All other
intersections continue to operate at the same LOS during both peak hours as for existing 2014
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
9
conditions. The baseline 2017 study area intersection and roadway configurations are
considered to be the same as the existing (2014) network.
Figure 5 shows the existing weekday 24-hour traffic volumes on Garvey Avenue are
approximately 26,000 and 28,000 vehicles per day to the east and west of the Project site,
respectively. These volumes are below capacity of this roadway (approximately 40,000 vehicles
per day). The weekday 24-hour volume along San Gabriel Boulevard south of the I-10 Freeway
is approximately 32,000 vehicles per day. The capacity of San Gabriel Boulevard is
approximately 40,000 vehicles per day along this segment. The existing weekday volumes on
Walnut Grove Avenue vary from approximately 19,000 vehicles per day south of Garvey
Avenue to 29,500 vehicles per day at the I-10 Freeway interchange. Walnut Grove Avenue has
a daily capacity of approximately 30,000 vehicles. The existing volumes on Delta Avenue and
Fern Avenue are below the approximate 5,000 vehicle per day capacity of these local streets.
Figure 7 shows that baseline 2017 weekday 24-hour volumes on the roadways surrounding the
project are forecast to remain below capacity with the exception of volumes on San Gabriel
Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue within the I-10 interchange areas. The forecast 2017
baseline volumes in the interchange areas are just above capacity of these roadways based on
regular cross-sections within the City of Rosemead. However, it would not be unusual for these
roadways to carry higher volumes within the interchange area due to the presence of
unrestricted turning movements at freeway on-ramps.
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
TABLE 1A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 1A - ICU LOS Description.xls]Sheet1
F
Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration;
traffic volumes and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volumes
will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E.
over 1.00
D
Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles
have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one
cycle during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in
urban areas.
0.81 - 0.90
E
0.00 - 0.60
Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can
accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal
cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than
one cycle during peak traffic periods.
Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic;
between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during
peak traffic periods.
0.61 - 0.70B
0.91 - 1.00
Level of
Service Traffic Flow Description Nominal
Range of ICU
C
Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other
traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one
or more vehicles which wait through more than one cycle during
peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard.
0.71 - 0.80
A
Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles;
all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than
one signal cycle.
16
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
TABLE 1B
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of
Service
Operations with delay less than or equal to 10.0 sec per vehicle;
most vehicles have a very short stop <10.0
Operations with delay in the range of 10.1 to 15.0 sec per
vehicle; higher levels of delay, longer stops than LOS A 10.1 to 15.0
Operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per
vehicle; significant levels of delay 15.1 to 25.0
Operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 35.0 sec per
vehicle; noticeable congestion; increased queue lengths; long delays 25.1 to 35.0
Operations with delay in the range of 35.1 to 50.0 sec per vehicle;
limit of acceptable delay; very long delay; long queue lengths 35.1 to 50.0
Operations with delay in excess of 50.0 sec per vehicle; considered
unacceptable driver delay; congestion; oversaturation;> 50.0
unacceptable queuing
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 1B - LOS Description.xls]Sheet1
C
D
E
F
Traffic Flow Description Worst Case Approach
Delay Per Vehicle (SEC)
A
B
17
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
ICU LOS ICU LOS
Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS
Average 1.7 A 3.7 A
Worst Case 16.6 C 17.8 C
Average 2.1 A 4.2 A
Worst Case 14.8 B 24.6 C
Average 1.5 A 2.7 A
Worst Case 14.4 B 17.1 C
Average 3.2 A 7.4 A
Worst Case 15.7 C 30.7 D
Average 13.0 B 22.4 C
Worst Case 99.6 F 174.8 F
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 2 - Exist LOS.xls]Sheet1
D
B0.63 B
0.82 D0.73 C
A
E
A
TABLE 2
Existing (2014) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
0.50 A 0.52 A
3. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave
4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave
C0.75
0.91
0.63
C
C
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave 0.56
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
Existing (2014)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourUnsignalized Intersections Type of
Delay
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing (2014)
0.77 C 0.84
0.78
0.58
0.79
18
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS
Average 1.7 A 3.7 A 1.9 A 4.3 A
Worst Case 16.6 C 17.8 C 17.9 C 19.8 C
Average 2.1 A 4.2 A 2.1 A 4.5 A
Worst Case 14.8 B 24.6 C 15.3 C 26.9 D
Average 1.5 A 2.7 A 1.5 A 2.9 A
Worst Case 14.4 B 17.1 C 15.0 B 18.4 C
Average 3.2 A 7.4 A 3.3 A 8.5 A
Worst Case 15.7 C 30.7 D 16.3 C 35.3 E
Average 13.0 B 22.4 C 16.8 C 28.8 D
Worst Case 99.6 F 174.8 F 129.3 F 225.8 F
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 3 - Baseline 2017 LOS.xls]Sheet1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.52 A 0.55
Existing (2014)Baseline (2017)
Baseline (2017) Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
D 0.95
0.60 A 0.65
AM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing (2014)
Type of
Delay
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
0.783. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave C
E
A 0.58
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
0.91
0.56
0.77
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.794. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave C
A
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
Signalized Intersections
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave
Unsignalized Intersections
C0.75
C 0.84 D
B0.63 B 0.63
Baseline (2017)
PM Peak Hour
0.80 C 0.78 C
0.84 E
0.59 A 0.63 B
0.78 C 0.86 D
B
0.75 C 0.88 D
TABLE 3
A
0.82 D
0.50 A 0.52 A
0.73 C
19
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
20
PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates and forecast project daily and peak hour traffic volumes are shown on
Table 4. The trip generation rates used to forecast traffic volumes produced by the project are
identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, in Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
The proposed project is to be implemented in a single phase in 2017. Baseline 2017 traffic
volumes have been developed by factoring existing 2014 volumes by an ambient growth rate of
1% per year and then adding traffic from identified future development projects. This growth
rate reflects an anticipated increase in traffic volumes associated with the recovering economy.
The identified projects whose cumulative traffic volumes have been considered in this analysis
include the Garvey 168 Plaza, Garvey Market Plaza, Garvey Del Mar Plaza, and 9048 Garvey
Avenue Mixed-Use Development which are located to the northeast, far west, west, and far east
of the Project site along Garvey Avenue at Willard Street, Garvey Avenue near New Avenue,
Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue, and Garvey Avenue at Sullivan Avenue, respectively.
As was previously mentioned, the project site has been considered as currently vacant with no
trip reduction applied to Project traffic forecasts to account for demolition of the existing site
uses and elimination of any existing or past traffic generation associated with the site. Also as
a mixed-use site, some internal trip capture would be expected, such as tenants patronizing the
project office and retail facilities. These internal trips would reduce the number of external trips
occurring on the surrounding roadway network. During the pm peak hour, the internal capture
rate of the Project is estimated at up to 6.8%. However, for a worst case scenario, no internal
trip capture has been considered in this analysis. Finally, although the Project site is served by
transit, will provide bicycle facilities, and is within walking distance of other residential areas, it is
assumed that all external trips arrive by vehicle. Therefore, based on the considerations above,
the trip generation used in this analysis is considered to be conservative.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Figure 8 shows the distribution and assignment for traffic generated by the project. This figure
shows that 10% of project traffic is assigned to/from both the east and west via the I-10 Freeway
SECTION III
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
21
with 20% each assigned to/from the east and west via Garvey Avenue. Ten percent (10%) and
15% of project traffic is assigned to/from the north and south, respectively, along San Gabriel
Boulevard. Five percent (5%) each is assigned to/from the north and south via Walnut Grove
Avenue and 5% to/from Delta Avenue to the south.
Project Site Access
There are two proposed project access driveways along Delta Avenue: a central 25-foot wide
driveway located approximately mid-way along the project frontage; and a 26-foot wide
(firelane) driveway located near the south end of the site. Both driveways provide access to 48
ground-level parking spaces serving the retail/office uses, leasing office, and loading zone, and
a security gate controlled ramp leading to basement-level resident parking.
Both driveways will provide full project access and there are no concerns with vehicle queuing
at Delta Avenue or at the project driveways. The driveway volumes will be low with less than an
average of 30 vehicles per driveway in peak hours. There will be approximately 150 feet from
the back of the crosswalk on Delta Avenue at Garvey Avenue to the first project driveway. It is
recommended that no on-street parking be allowed along the project frontage on Delta Avenue
to maintain sight distance from the project driveways. On-street parking restriction can be
accomplished through the installation of red curb or “No Stopping Any Time” signs.
Project Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes
The combination of project trip generation and project trip distribution/assignment results in the
Project traffic volumes shown on Figures 9A and 9B for am and pm peak hours, respectively.
These figures show the project peak hour turning movement volumes at study area
intersections and the total (two-way) project peak hour volumes on roadway links between
intersections. Figure 10 shows Project weekday daily 24-hour traffic volumes.
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, California
TABLE 4
Garvey Garden Plaza - Trip Generation Summary
Trip Generation Rates*
Daily
Land Use Unit
ITE Land
Code Quantity Rate Rate In Out Rate In Out
1. Multi-Family Residential DU 220 46 6.65 0.51 20%80%0.62 65%35%
2. Commercial - Retail SF 820 5,730 42.70 0.96 62%38%3.71 48%52%
3. Commercial - Office SF 710 6,130 11.03 1.56 88%12%1.49 17%83%
Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity ADT Total In Out Total In Out
1. Multi-Family Residential 46 306 23 5 18 29 19 10
2. Commercial - Retail 5,730 245 6 4 2 21 10 11
3. Commercial - Office 6,130 68 10 9 1 9 2 7
Total 619 18 21 31 28
* Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Trip Generation.xls]Sheet1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Volume
Split Split
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
22
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
27
Existing (2014) with Project Traffic Volumes
Existing 2014 and project only traffic volumes have been combined to produce forecasts of
existing traffic conditions with Project implementation. Figures 11A and 11B show Existing 2014
with Project traffic volumes for am and pm peak hours, respectively. Figure 12 shows Existing
2014 with Project weekday daily 24-hour traffic volumes.
Baseline 2017 with Project Traffic Volumes
Baseline 2017 and project only traffic volumes have been combined to produce forecasts of
future traffic conditions with Project implementation. Figures 13A and 13B show Baseline 2017
with Project traffic volumes for am and pm peak hours, respectively. Figure 14 shows Baseline
2017 with Project weekday daily 24-hour traffic volumes.
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
34
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
To evaluate level of service at study area intersections with Existing 2014 and Baseline 2017
with project conditions, the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method has been used for
signalized intersections and the HCM operations method for unsignalized intersections. The
target level of service to be maintained throughout the project study area has been established
by the City of Rosemead as Level of Service D.
Existing (2014) and Baseline 2017 Conditions
Table 2 in Section II of this report shows that all signalized intersections within the project study
area are operating at LOS D or better during existing am and pm peak hours with the exception
of the San Gabriel Boulevard and Garvey Avenue intersection which is operating at a high LOS
E during the pm peak hour. Table 2 also shows that all study area unsignalized intersections
within the I-10 interchange areas at San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue are
operating at LOS C or better under existing conditions based on average delay per Caltrans
analysis guidelines.
To analyze Baseline 2017 (no project) conditions on the existing circulation network an ambient
growth factor of 1% per year has been applied to 2014 volumes and cumulative traffic from
other known development projects that passes through the study area intersections has been
added to the forecasts. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows that
with forecast Baseline 2017 peak hour volumes all of the intersections within the study area will
continue to operate at Level of Service D or better with the exception of San Gabriel
Boulevard/Garvey Avenue which will continue to operate at LOS E during the pm peak hour.
This is based on LOS associated with average delay at unsignalized intersections per Caltrans
procedures as discussed above.
Existing 2014 with Project Conditions
Table 5 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for Existing 2014 with Project
traffic volume conditions. Table 5 shows that with forecast Existing 2014 with Project peak hour
volumes all of the intersections within the study area will continue to operate at Level of Service
D or better with the only exception still the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection
during the pm peak hour which will continue to have forecast LOS E.
SECTION IV
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
35
Figure 12 shows that the roadways surrounding the Project site are predicted to operate below
capacity based on 24-hour volumes for Existing 2014 with Project conditions.
Baseline 2017 with Project Conditions
Table 6 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for Baseline 2017 with Project
traffic volume conditions. Table 6 shows that with forecast Baseline 2017 with Project peak
hour volumes all of the intersections within the study area will continue to operate at Level of
Service D or better with the exception of San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue (0.96-E) during
the pm peak hour, and there is very little change in LOS as compared to the Baseline 2017 (no
project) scenario. It has been noted that the City General Plan Circulation Element identifies
improvements to this intersection to add one additional through lane in the eastbound and
westbound directions in the future. This improvement is anticipated to reduce the existing and
future peak hour LOS at the intersection to C and D during the am and pm peak hours,
respectively.
Figure 14 shows that the roadways surrounding the Project site are predicted to operate below
capacity based on 24-hour volumes for Baseline 2017 with Project conditions with the exception
of San Gabriel Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue in the I-10 interchange areas. However,
as previously discussed, the actual daily roadway capacities in these areas are anticipated to be
somewhat higher than the capacities used in the v/c analysis because of the unrestricted ramp
turning movements.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Traffic signal warrant analysis based on peak hour volumes was performed where applicable for
all non-signalized study area intersections for Existing 2014 with Project and Baseline 2017 with
Project scenarios analyzed in this study. The I-10 westbound off-ramp and Walnut Grove
Avenue signal satisfied the peak hour warrant during both the am and pm peak hours under
existing 2014 conditions and all subsequent scenarios. This indicates that a more rigorous
signal warrant analysis including 4 hour and 8 hour warrants may be justified for existing
conditions. However, no mitigation is required at this intersection with Project implementation
and any project “fair share” at this location would be only a fraction of a percent even if justified.
Therefore, the proposed project should have no obligation to contribute funding to signalization
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
36
either in the short or long term. The project trip generation is not high enough to require
consideration of signalization at any of the project driveways. Traffic signal warrant calculations
are included in the appendix.
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS
Average 1.7 A 3.7 A 1.7 A 3.7 A
Worst Case 16.6 C 17.8 C 16.6 C 17.9 C
Average 2.1 A 4.2 A 2.1 A 4.2 A
Worst Case 14.8 B 24.6 C 14.8 B 24.7 C
Average 1.5 A 2.7 A 1.7 A 2.7 A
Worst Case 14.4 B 17.1 C 14.5 B 17.3 C
Average 3.2 A 7.4 A 3.2 A 7.4 A
Worst Case 15.7 C 30.7 D 15.8 C 31.0 D
Average 13.0 B 22.4 C 13.1 B 22.5 C
Worst Case 99.6 F 174.8 F 99.6 F 174.5 F
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 5 - Exist +Proj LOS.xls]Sheet1
TABLE 5
Existing (2014) with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
C 0.82 D
0.52 A
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.82 D0.74
Existing plus Project (2014)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing (2014)
0.56 A 0.58
0.63
0.77 C 0.84 D
E
0.78 C 0.76 C
0.92
0.58 A 0.61
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
B
B
0.78 C 0.84 D
0.64 B
4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave 0.50 A
0.78 C
C0.79
0.63 B
0.73
Unsignalized Intersections Type of Delay
Existing (2014)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.79 C0.91
C0.75
0.52
0.63
Existing plus Project (2014)
C
A
Signalized Intersections
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave
3. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave
E
A
B
0.50 A
37
VA Consulting, Inc.Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
February 2015 Traffic Impact Analysis
Rosemead, CA
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS Delay (Sec./Veh)LOS
Average 1.9 A 4.3 A 1.9 A 4.3 A
Worst Case 17.9 C 19.8 C 17.9 C 19.9 C
Average 2.1 A 4.5 A 2.1 A 4.5 A
Worst Case 15.3 C 26.9 D 15.3 C 27.0 D
Average 1.5 A 2.9 A 2.2 A 2.9 A
Worst Case 15.0 B 18.4 C 15.0 C 18.6 C
Average 3.3 A 8.5 A 3.3 A 8.6 A
Worst Case 16.3 C 35.3 E 16.4 C 35.7 E
Average 16.8 C 28.8 D 16.8 C 28.9 D
Worst Case 129.3 F 225.8 F 129.2 F 225.6 F
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\[Table 6- Baseline 2017 LOS + Project LOS.xls]Sheet1
DD0.75 C 0.894. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave - Future CIP Imps (Add 1 EB/WB thru lane)0.75 C 0.87
Unsignalized Intersections Type of
Delay
1a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
1b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
2a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
6. Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps (HCM - Sec/Delay)
Signalized Intersections
2b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR (HCM - Sec/Delay)
7. Walnut Grove Ave / Hellman Ave
8. I-10 EB Ramps / Hellman Ave
9. Walnut Grove Ave / Garvey Ave
10. Walnut Grove Ave / Fern Ave
3. San Gabriel Blvd / Hellman Ave
4. San Gabriel Blvd / Garvey Ave
Baseline (2017)
AM Peak Hour
Baseline plus Project (2017)
PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
0.78 C
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.80 C 0.780.80 C
0.84 D 0.95
5. Delta Ave / Garvey Ave
AM Peak Hour
Baseline (2017)Baseline plus Project (2017)
TABLE 6
Baseline (2017) with Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections
E
0.59 A 0.63 B
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
0.78 C 0.86 D
0.60 A 0.65 B
C
0.84 D 0.96 E
0.61 B 0.65 B
0.78 C 0.86 D
0.66 B 0.65 B
0.75 C 0.89 D
0.52 A 0.55 A
0.75 C 0.88 D
0.52 A 0.55 A
38
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
39
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Study Area Circulation Impacts
For existing (2014) conditions, study area signalized intersections are operating at Level of
Service D or better based on existing peak hour intersection volumes with one exception. The
San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E (ICU-0.91) during the
pm peak hour. Unsignalized intersections at interchanges of the I-10 Freeway at San Gabriel
Boulevard and Walnut Grove Avenue are currently operating at LOS C or above based on
average vehicle delay associated with existing peak hour traffic volumes. Study area roadways
are operating below capacity based on weekday 24-hour roadway volumes.
For Existing 2014 with Project, Baseline 2017 (no project), and Baseline 2017 with Project
conditions the study area intersections will continue to operate at Level of Service D or better
with exception of the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection. However, a future
City Capital Improvements Program (CIP) project is planned to add an additional through lane
on each direction of Garvey Avenue and with this improvement, as shown on Table 6, a
minimum of LOS D at the San Gabriel Boulevard/Garvey Avenue intersection will be provided
for future with Project conditions. Table 6 shows that this improvement will lower the am peak
hour ICU-LOS from 0.84-D to 0.75-C and the pm peak hour ICU-LOS from 0.95-E to 0.87-D for
Project peak hour conditions. Other than considering this future City CIP project, no additional
circulation system mitigation measures are required for implementation of the Garvey Garden
Plaza Project.
This analysis also identifies that no project driveway locations require signalization or
restrictions on access. It is recommended that no on-street parking be provided along the
project frontage on Delta Avenue so that sight distance from the project driveways can be
maintained. All findings were based on a worst-case analysis for Project trip generation.
On-site Circulation
There are no concerns regarding on-site circulation associated with the proposed project. The
project access driveways and parking aisles are appropriately sized and configured for the
project volumes and will be designed in accordance with applicable agency standards. Sight-
SECTION V
VA Consulting, Inc. Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed-Use Development
Traffic Impact Analysis
February 2015 Rosemead, California
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Report_text.doc
40
distance requirements at project access driveways and intersections will be provided per
agency standards. Site parking supply has been provided to meet or exceed City code.
Because of potential height restrictions, the proximity to residences, and potential on-site
circulation impacts, the following measures should be considered to address commercial
deliveries to the site.
1. All delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site shall have a maximum height consistent
with the vertical clearances provided on-site.
2. No vehicle deliveries between the hours of 10 pm to 9 am.
3. All delivery vehicles shall park in the designated loading areas located within the
commercial and basement parking areas.
Traffic Signal Warrants
Only the Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 westbound ramps study area intersection satisfies peak
hour traffic signal warrants for the scenarios included in this study. The other unsignalized
study area intersections include existing stop-control for right-turn only movements where
signalization is typically not appropriate. The Walnut Grove Avenue/I-10 westbound ramps
intersection satisfies peak hour warrants under existing conditions with or without the project
and no project mitigation is required at this intersection. Therefore, satisfaction of these
warrants simply suggests that more in-depth analysis may be justified in the future if
improvements are planned at this intersection, and the Garvey Garden Plaza Project has no
obligation to contribute to any funding for signalization.
APPENDIX A
Existing Peak Hour Intersection
Turning Movements Counts
and Roadway Link ADT’s
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 1 0 City:
AM 270 1347 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 373 1062 0 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
177 0 277 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 150 0 275
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 1086 146 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 1362 212 PM
0 1 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
270 0 373 177 0 277
150 0 275 146 0 212
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM1574
1617
1337
1497
0
East Leg
North Leg
3074
323
South Leg
6484200
2729
0
2911
South Leg
East Leg
1232
0 0
16391435
West Leg
0
West Leg
489
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
1497
0
1337
Northbound Approach
2880
0
6:00 PM
1263
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-001
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
San Gabriel Blvd and I-10 WB Ramps , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
212
1263
0
1639
2 Way Stop(EB/WB)
CONTROL
San Gabriel Blvd
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
146 0
730 AM
I-10 WB Ramps
500 PM
270 0 373
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 2 0 City:
AM 333 1168 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 145 1179 0 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
247 0 380 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 133 0 217
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 984 294 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 1199 251 PM
0 2 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
333 0 145 247 0 380
133 0 217 294 0 251
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
294 0
730 AM
I-10 EB Ramps
San Gabriel Blvd
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
San Gabriel Blvd and I-10 EB Ramps , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
251
1231
0
1579
2 Way Stop(EB/WB)
CONTROL
500 PM
333
14-5527-002
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
0 145
Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
1301
0
1396
Northbound Approach
9:00 AM
6:00 PM
South Leg
East Leg
1278
0 0
15791324
West Leg
East Leg
North Leg
2903
541 0 631
2732
0
South Leg
3624660
2579
0
West Leg
28461450
1501
1396
1301
0
1231
0
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 3 1 City:
AM 149 1069 79 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 129 1181 81 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
97 0 78 0
186 0 109 1
1 126 0 121 40 0 30 1
1 158 0 177
0 91 0 90
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 61 1018 22 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 80 1244 37 PM
1 2 1 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
396 0 318 323 0 217
375 0 388 259 0 295
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM1361
1297
1301
1200
0
East Leg
North Leg
2834
582
South Leg
7067710
2301
0
2662
South Leg
East Leg
1101
0 0
14431391
West Leg
0
West Leg
512
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
1200
0
1301
Northbound Approach
2538
0
6:00 PM
1241
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-003
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
San Gabriel Blvd and Hellman Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
295
1241
0
1443
Signalized
CONTROL
San Gabriel Blvd
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
259 0
730 AM
Hellman Ave
500 PM
396 0 318
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 1 2 1 City:
AM 141 838 209 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 170 849 249 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
212 0 196 1
773 0 664 2
1 186 0 228 154 0 166 1
2 650 0 824
1 69 0 92
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 74 655 154 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 122 917 171 PM
1 2 1 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
988 0 956 1139 0 1026
905 0 1144 1013 0 1244
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
1013 0
730 AM
Garvey Ave
San Gabriel Blvd
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
San Gabriel Blvd and Garvey Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
1244
1053
0
1341
Signalized
CONTROL
500 PM
988
14-5527-004
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
0 956
Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
1061
0
1107
Northbound Approach
9:00 AM
6:00 PM
South Leg
East Leg
883
0 0
13411268
West Leg
East Leg
North Leg
2609
2152 0 2270
2241
0
South Leg
210018930
1944
0
West Leg
23171210
1188
1107
1061
0
1053
0
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 1 0 City:
AM 3 2 1 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 5 2 4 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
0 0 2 0
977 0 922 2
1 6 0 11 21 0 23 1
2 884 0 1068
0 176 0 146
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 156 2 37 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 127 2 19 PM
0 1 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
1136 0 1054 998 0 947
1066 0 1225 922 0 1091
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM148
6
171
199
0
East Leg
North Leg
26
1920
South Leg
227922020
394
0
319
South Leg
East Leg
195
0 0
1511
West Leg
0
West Leg
2038
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
199
0
171
Northbound Approach
14
0
6:00 PM
8
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-005
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
Delta Ave and Garvey Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
1091
8
0
15
Signalized
CONTROL
Delta Ave
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
922 0
730 AM
Garvey Ave
500 PM
1136 0 1054
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 2 0 City:
AM 199 960 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 196 843 0 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 100 0 87 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 212 0 266
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 113 907 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 228 1267 0 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
312 0 424 0 0 0
312 0 353 0 0 0
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM1495
1159
1109
1172
0
East Leg
North Leg
2393
0
South Leg
7776240
2192
0
2604
South Leg
East Leg
1020
0 0
13541039
West Leg
0
West Leg
0
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
1172
0
1109
Northbound Approach
2166
0
6:00 PM
1007
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-006
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
Walnut Grove Ave and I-10 WB Ramps , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
0
1007
0
1354
1 Way Stop(EB)
CONTROL
Walnut Grove Ave
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
0 0
715 AM
I-10 WB Ramps
500 PM
312 0 424
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 2 1 City:
AM 134 762 101 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 142 690 130 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
245 0 232 1
79 0 46 0.5
0.5 216 0 311 10 0 4 0.5
0.5 50 0 86
1 126 0 107
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 157 465 13 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 104 955 23 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
370 0 292 334 0 282
392 0 504 164 0 239
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM1082
997
801
898
0
East Leg
North Leg
2460
498
South Leg
7967620
1533
0
1883
South Leg
East Leg
635
0 0
1498962
West Leg
0
West Leg
521
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
898
0
801
Northbound Approach
1923
0
6:00 PM
926
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-007
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
Walnut Grove Ave and Hellman Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
239
926
0
1498
Signalized
CONTROL
Walnut Grove Ave
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
164 0
730 AM
Hellman Ave
500 PM
370 0 292
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 1 0 City:
AM 6 0 251 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 8 0 289 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
142 0 107 0.5
232 0 183 0
0 65 0 38 0 0 0 0.5
1 159 0 219
0 0 0 0
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 0 0 PM
0 0 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
238 0 191 374 0 290
224 0 257 410 0 508
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
410 0
800 AM
Hellman Ave
I-10 EB Ramps
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
I-10 EB Ramps and Hellman Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
508
207
0
145
Signalized
CONTROL
500 PM
238
14-5527-008
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
0 191
Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
0
0
0
Northbound Approach
9:00 AM
6:00 PM
South Leg
East Leg
0
0 0
145297
West Leg
East Leg
North Leg
442
784 0 798
464
0
South Leg
4484620
0
0
West Leg
00
257
0
0
0
207
0
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 2 1 City:
AM 117 636 198 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 87 573 167 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
101 0 188 0
814 0 777 3
1 107 0 141 126 0 109 1
3 738 0 779
0 55 0 95
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 115 370 85 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 105 774 156 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
1046 0 969 1041 0 1074
900 0 1015 1021 0 1102
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
1021 0
730 AM
Garvey Ave
Walnut Grove Ave
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Walnut Grove Ave and Garvey Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
1102
578
0
1103
Signalized
CONTROL
500 PM
1046
14-5527-009
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
0 969
Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
817
0
777
Northbound Approach
9:00 AM
6:00 PM
South Leg
East Leg
570
0 0
1103827
West Leg
East Leg
North Leg
1930
2062 0 2176
1529
0
South Leg
198419460
1387
0
West Leg
18121035
951
777
817
0
578
0
N
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:
National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 2 1 City:
AM 65 711 24 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 80 618 55 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
65 0 72 0
59 0 33 1
0 88 0 23 12 0 20 0
1 50 0 35
0 46 0 41
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 23 380 10 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 47 960 33 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
147 0 160 136 0 125
184 0 99 84 0 123
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM
NOON NOON
PM PM1040
800
679
769
0
East Leg
North Leg
1808
220
South Leg
2593310
1182
0
1719
South Leg
East Leg
413
0 0
1055753
West Leg
0
West Leg
248
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
769
0
679
Northbound Approach
1333
0
6:00 PM
533
0
Total Volume Per Leg
14-5527-010
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM 9:00 AM
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:00 PM
Day:
Eastbound Approach
Walnut Grove Ave and Fern Ave , Rosemead
PM Peak Hour
123
533
0
1055
Signalized
CONTROL
Walnut Grove Ave
AM Peak Hour
Thursday
Westbound Approach
Rosemead
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:9/11/2014Date:
84 0
730 AM
Fern Ave
500 PM
147 0 160
N
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_001
NB SB EB WB
16,196 15,600 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 30 34 64 246 227 473 00:15 31 49 80 250 214 46400:30 27 29 56 248 247 49500:45 21 109 22 134 43 243 230 974 212 900 442 187401:00 14 17 31 221 220 44101:15 18 26 44 249 212 46101:30 17 14 31 243 241 48401:45 12 61 12 69 24 130 253 966 220 893 473 185902:00 7 16 23 267 220 487 02:15 10 13 23 242 235 477 02:30 12 8 20 261 207 468
02:45 8 37 15 52 23 89 257 1027 226 888 483 191503:00 12 10 22 256 224 480 03:15 13 9 22 279 249 528 03:30 13 7 20 257 246 503 03:45 6 44 11 37 17 81 260 1052 263 982 523 203404:00 14 6 20 247 291 538 04:15 15 16 31 293 241 534
04:30 28 21 49 285 297 582 04:45 24 81 23 66 47 147 285 1110 287 1116 572 222605:00 32 32 64 311 276 587 05:15 39 37 76 317 320 637 05:30 54 39 93 344 302 646 05:45 65 190 62 170 127 360 297 1269 325 1223 622 249206:00 58 54 112 338 286 624
06:15 88 81 169 303 292 595 06:30 145 113 258 315 290 605 06:45 148 439 141 389 289 828 300 1256 240 1108 540 236407:00 191 142 333 251 234 485 07:15 227 219 446 254 238 492 07:30 306 261 567 214 208 422 07:45 263 987 297 919 560 1906 206 925 182 862 388 178708:00 214 318 532 230 179 409 08:15 249 260 509 197 195 392 08:30 241 238 479 142 146 288 08:45 247 951 265 1081 512 2032 191 760 147 667 338 1427
09:00 253 211 464 141 166 307 09:15 203 265 468 157 145 302 09:30 224 232 456 141 140 281 09:45 231 911 217 925 448 1836 135 574 152 603 287 117710:00 234 208 442 128 120 248 10:15 213 229 442 112 129 241 10:30 224 242 466 74 93 167
10:45 225 896 231 910 456 1806 73 387 84 426 157 81311:00 247 235 482 74 77 151 11:15 232 226 458 60 77 137 11:30 262 227 489 44 66 110 11:45 228 969 232 920 460 1889 43 221 40 260 83 481
TOTALS 5675 5672 11347 10521 9928 20449
SPLIT %50.0%50.0%35.7%51.4%48.6%64.3%
NB SB EB WB
16,196 15,600 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:15 17:15 17:15
AM Pk Volume 1032 1136 2168 1296 1233 2529
Pk Hr Factor 0.843 0.893 0.956 0.942 0.948 0.979
7 - 9 Volume 1938 2000 0 0 3938 2379 2339 0 0 4718
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 1032 1136 0 0 2168 1269 1223 0 0 2492
Pk Hr Factor 0.843 0.893 0.000 0.000 0.956 0.922 0.941 0.000 0.000 0.964
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
San Gabriel Blvd S/O Hellman Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
31,796
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
31,796
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_002
NB SB EB WB
0 0 13,967 14,101
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 37 30 67 191 240 431 00:15 39 16 55 233 236 46900:30 25 18 43 223 231 45400:45 18 119 17 81 35 200 219 866 205 912 424 177801:00 16 14 30 203 192 39501:15 11 10 21 201 190 39101:30 11 9 20 205 183 38801:45 9 47 7 40 16 87 221 830 177 742 398 157202:00 11 12 23 217 187 404 02:15 7 6 13 231 201 432 02:30 4 7 11 249 221 470
02:45 9 31 7 32 16 63 277 974 242 851 519 182503:00 12 11 23 237 218 455 03:15 7 8 15 235 199 434 03:30 3 9 12 260 178 438 03:45 14 36 6 34 20 70 241 973 207 802 448 177504:00 8 9 17 251 246 497 04:15 15 12 27 289 205 494
04:30 12 14 26 267 197 464 04:45 17 52 19 54 36 106 261 1068 221 869 482 193705:00 20 13 33 285 218 503 05:15 28 26 54 298 236 534 05:30 31 32 63 307 246 553 05:45 37 116 54 125 91 241 329 1219 266 966 595 218506:00 20 55 75 304 287 591
06:15 38 84 122 298 282 580 06:30 56 138 194 274 258 532 06:45 97 211 141 418 238 629 277 1153 227 1054 504 220707:00 88 198 286 238 241 479 07:15 115 230 345 207 249 456 07:30 171 287 458 194 190 384 07:45 289 663 276 991 565 1654 199 838 163 843 362 168108:00 277 275 552 149 187 336 08:15 238 257 495 159 158 317 08:30 196 297 493 128 103 231 08:45 235 946 233 1062 468 2008 129 565 131 579 260 1144
09:00 178 239 417 115 99 214 09:15 205 253 458 118 95 213 09:30 178 297 475 102 90 192 09:45 195 756 216 1005 411 1761 95 430 93 377 188 80710:00 167 232 399 101 90 191 10:15 198 211 409 81 81 162 10:30 206 243 449 66 47 113
10:45 201 772 216 902 417 1674 62 310 44 262 106 57211:00 196 218 414 47 58 105 11:15 192 216 408 42 43 85 11:30 200 235 435 47 46 93 11:45 238 826 250 919 488 1745 30 166 34 181 64 347
TOTALS 4575 5663 10238 9392 8438 17830
SPLIT %44.7%55.3%36.5%52.7%47.3%63.5%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 13,967 14,101
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 17:15 17:45 17:30
AM Pk Volume 1000 1105 2105 1238 1093 2319
Pk Hr Factor 0.865 0.930 0.931 0.941 0.952 0.974
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 1609 2053 3662 0 0 2287 1835 4122
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 1000 1105 2105 0 0 1219 966 2185
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.865 0.930 0.931 0.000 0.000 0.926 0.908 0.918
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Garvey Ave W/O Charlotte Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
28,068
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
28,068
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_003
NB SB EB WB
0 0 12,728 12,994
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 27 22 49 185 199 384 00:15 28 16 44 216 239 45500:30 21 18 39 214 204 41800:45 15 91 18 74 33 165 201 816 217 859 418 167501:00 18 18 36 192 151 34301:15 14 8 22 194 170 36401:30 9 12 21 169 183 35201:45 9 50 7 45 16 95 200 755 176 680 376 143502:00 14 11 25 191 146 337 02:15 5 9 14 220 222 442 02:30 3 8 11 236 198 434
02:45 6 28 8 36 14 64 239 886 217 783 456 166903:00 10 8 18 223 186 409 03:15 6 7 13 242 191 433 03:30 6 7 13 227 157 384 03:45 11 33 9 31 20 64 230 922 227 761 457 168304:00 8 6 14 220 214 434 04:15 12 10 22 253 174 427
04:30 15 15 30 236 185 421 04:45 19 54 16 47 35 101 250 959 211 784 461 174305:00 24 16 40 261 197 458 05:15 30 21 51 273 228 501 05:30 41 22 63 266 227 493 05:45 39 134 48 107 87 241 279 1079 275 927 554 200606:00 31 49 80 229 255 484
06:15 40 81 121 259 254 513 06:30 77 99 176 238 232 470 06:45 89 237 131 360 220 597 247 973 230 971 477 194407:00 96 166 262 220 210 430 07:15 110 206 316 182 223 405 07:30 168 252 420 182 167 349 07:45 268 642 241 865 509 1507 162 746 156 756 318 150208:00 259 255 514 129 172 301 08:15 231 257 488 136 140 276 08:30 182 233 415 123 92 215 08:45 217 889 218 963 435 1852 111 499 115 519 226 1018
09:00 186 210 396 106 109 215 09:15 184 254 438 107 92 199 09:30 169 262 431 79 89 168 09:45 158 697 230 956 388 1653 85 377 92 382 177 75910:00 161 212 373 98 82 180 10:15 149 195 344 66 80 146 10:30 164 212 376 62 42 104
10:45 185 659 206 825 391 1484 50 276 45 249 95 52511:00 186 200 386 43 51 94 11:15 194 221 415 35 37 72 11:30 201 203 404 33 44 77 11:45 207 788 229 853 436 1641 27 138 29 161 56 299
TOTALS 4302 5162 9464 8426 7832 16258
SPLIT %45.5%54.5%36.8%51.8%48.2%63.2%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 12,728 12,994
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:45 17:30
AM Pk Volume 940 1005 1931 1079 1016 2044
Pk Hr Factor 0.877 0.978 0.939 0.967 0.924 0.922
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 1531 1828 3359 0 0 2038 1711 3749
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 940 1005 1931 0 0 1079 927 2006
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.877 0.978 0.939 0.000 0.000 0.967 0.843 0.905
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Garvey Ave Bet. Willard Ave & Earle Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
25,722
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
25,722
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_004
NB SB EB WB
10,163 9,053 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 24 15 39 162 112 274 00:15 20 14 34 165 128 29300:30 10 8 18 151 100 25100:45 17 71 13 50 30 121 144 622 135 475 279 109701:00 9 8 17 118 146 26401:15 12 7 19 136 129 26501:30 12 4 16 140 134 27401:45 10 43 9 28 19 71 138 532 108 517 246 104902:00 5 6 11 150 130 280 02:15 9 7 16 150 130 280 02:30 7 6 13 135 131 266
02:45 2 23 4 23 6 46 181 616 126 517 307 113303:00 9 5 14 161 112 273 03:15 4 8 12 153 137 290 03:30 5 4 9 156 128 284 03:45 6 24 3 20 9 44 163 633 146 523 309 115604:00 11 14 25 211 150 361 04:15 13 12 25 232 186 418
04:30 8 14 22 222 160 382 04:45 7 39 22 62 29 101 222 887 150 646 372 153305:00 7 25 32 246 156 402 05:15 12 30 42 267 168 435 05:30 17 47 64 270 182 452 05:45 28 64 59 161 87 225 267 1050 194 700 461 175006:00 29 47 76 258 184 442
06:15 40 47 87 243 173 416 06:30 49 72 121 209 181 390 06:45 59 177 102 268 161 445 207 917 157 695 364 161207:00 93 110 203 202 125 327 07:15 106 120 226 173 125 298 07:30 142 178 320 183 127 310 07:45 150 491 187 595 337 1086 183 741 133 510 316 125108:00 133 208 341 149 124 273 08:15 114 204 318 162 86 248 08:30 127 209 336 127 90 217 08:45 99 473 196 817 295 1290 115 553 99 399 214 952
09:00 111 164 275 89 86 175 09:15 105 154 259 106 89 195 09:30 101 140 241 95 42 137 09:45 108 425 128 586 236 1011 88 378 85 302 173 68010:00 99 132 231 85 46 131 10:15 122 113 235 77 47 124 10:30 110 115 225 71 33 104
10:45 111 442 106 466 217 908 37 270 38 164 75 43411:00 118 101 219 35 34 69 11:15 140 89 229 21 30 51 11:30 163 106 269 29 24 53 11:45 163 584 126 422 289 1006 23 108 19 107 42 215
TOTALS 2856 3498 6354 7307 5555 12862
SPLIT %44.9%55.1%33.1%56.8%43.2%66.9%
NB SB EB WB
10,163 9,053 0 0
AM Peak Hour 11:30 08:00 07:45 17:15 17:30 17:15
AM Pk Volume 653 817 1332 1062 733 1790
Pk Hr Factor 0.989 0.977 0.977 0.983 0.945 0.971
7 - 9 Volume 964 1412 0 0 2376 1937 1346 0 0 3283
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:45 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 539 817 0 0 1332 1050 700 0 0 1750
Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.977 0.000 0.000 0.977 0.972 0.902 0.000 0.000 0.949
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Walnut Grove Ave S/O Garvey Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
19,216
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
19,216
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_005
NB SB EB WB
11,032 10,532 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 21 16 37 179 143 322 00:15 12 12 24 193 135 32800:30 18 13 31 154 161 31500:45 14 65 14 55 28 120 146 672 189 628 335 130001:00 16 12 28 141 151 29201:15 9 10 19 134 157 29101:30 12 6 18 159 152 31101:45 8 45 10 38 18 83 164 598 133 593 297 119102:00 5 2 7 162 158 320 02:15 11 7 18 171 144 315 02:30 4 11 15 158 160 318
02:45 4 24 5 25 9 49 199 690 184 646 383 133603:00 12 2 14 172 159 331 03:15 4 6 10 184 177 361 03:30 10 6 16 183 169 352 03:45 8 34 4 18 12 52 181 720 184 689 365 140904:00 10 13 23 198 168 366 04:15 7 10 17 212 179 391
04:30 11 13 24 215 153 368 04:45 12 40 13 49 25 89 249 874 216 716 465 159005:00 14 17 31 269 157 426 05:15 21 27 48 283 181 464 05:30 24 36 60 271 213 484 05:45 19 78 52 132 71 210 262 1085 212 763 474 184806:00 41 46 87 269 196 465
06:15 49 45 94 301 205 506 06:30 78 69 147 212 176 388 06:45 87 255 115 275 202 530 234 1016 164 741 398 175707:00 103 121 224 220 133 353 07:15 160 118 278 179 133 312 07:30 164 207 371 199 140 339 07:45 170 597 220 666 390 1263 156 754 119 525 275 127908:00 120 226 346 154 124 278 08:15 149 266 415 155 109 264 08:30 134 220 354 112 96 208 08:45 137 540 252 964 389 1504 86 507 99 428 185 935
09:00 121 191 312 111 98 209 09:15 122 219 341 91 108 199 09:30 131 169 300 95 55 150 09:45 145 519 152 731 297 1250 84 381 93 354 177 73510:00 129 146 275 85 57 142 10:15 140 163 303 69 62 131 10:30 110 137 247 53 40 93
10:45 137 516 126 572 263 1088 35 242 49 208 84 45011:00 135 156 291 31 40 71 11:15 171 126 297 22 42 64 11:30 188 162 350 28 26 54 11:45 181 675 137 581 318 1256 24 105 27 135 51 240
TOTALS 3388 4106 7494 7644 6426 14070
SPLIT %45.2%54.8%34.8%54.3%45.7%65.2%
NB SB EB WB
11,032 10,532 0 0
AM Peak Hour 11:30 08:00 07:30 17:30 17:30 17:30
AM Pk Volume 741 964 1522 1103 826 1929
Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.906 0.917 0.916 0.969 0.953
7 - 9 Volume 1137 1630 0 0 2767 1959 1479 0 0 3438
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:15 08:00 07:30 17:00 16:45 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 614 964 0 0 1522 1085 767 0 0 1848
Pk Hr Factor 0.903 0.906 0.000 0.000 0.917 0.958 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.955
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Walnut Grove Ave S/O Dorothy St
21:3021:4522:00
Total
21,564
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
21,564
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_006
NB SB EB WB
15,114 14,387 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 29 26 55 232 220 452 00:15 27 31 58 250 204 45400:30 28 26 54 224 211 43500:45 23 107 34 117 57 224 193 899 271 906 464 180501:00 23 19 42 187 241 42801:15 16 16 32 185 211 39601:30 19 18 37 216 227 44301:45 13 71 5 58 18 129 186 774 208 887 394 166102:00 8 15 23 221 206 427 02:15 7 3 10 230 226 456 02:30 10 4 14 224 245 469
02:45 10 35 10 32 20 67 245 920 245 922 490 184203:00 11 7 18 234 255 489 03:15 8 8 16 222 281 503 03:30 12 11 23 239 235 474 03:45 9 40 9 35 18 75 229 924 184 955 413 187904:00 21 15 36 280 227 507 04:15 23 18 41 262 207 469
04:30 20 20 40 309 234 543 04:45 13 77 16 69 29 146 344 1195 195 863 539 205805:00 21 27 48 353 248 601 05:15 40 31 71 367 260 627 05:30 46 44 90 361 247 608 05:45 44 151 61 163 105 314 383 1464 287 1042 670 250606:00 64 71 135 369 276 645
06:15 71 87 158 373 256 629 06:30 126 87 213 357 228 585 06:45 123 384 161 406 284 790 297 1396 231 991 528 238707:00 159 172 331 316 219 535 07:15 289 239 528 236 193 429 07:30 338 303 641 248 169 417 07:45 209 995 317 1031 526 2026 206 1006 183 764 389 177008:00 188 299 487 191 148 339 08:15 209 289 498 205 149 354 08:30 171 344 515 150 149 299 08:45 182 750 227 1159 409 1909 144 690 153 599 297 1289
09:00 190 243 433 130 159 289 09:15 152 216 368 108 138 246 09:30 185 224 409 124 117 241 09:45 190 717 196 879 386 1596 139 501 125 539 264 104010:00 161 203 364 107 113 220 10:15 176 170 346 102 96 198 10:30 160 209 369 84 87 171
10:45 173 670 160 742 333 1412 64 357 72 368 136 72511:00 178 163 341 49 57 106 11:15 183 143 326 47 51 98 11:30 205 176 381 45 42 87 11:45 237 803 177 659 414 1462 47 188 51 201 98 389
TOTALS 4800 5350 10150 10314 9037 19351
SPLIT %47.3%52.7%34.4%53.3%46.7%65.6%
NB SB EB WB
15,114 14,387 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:15 07:45 07:15 17:30 17:15 17:30
AM Pk Volume 1024 1249 2182 1486 1070 2552
Pk Hr Factor 0.757 0.908 0.851 0.970 0.932 0.952
7 - 9 Volume 1745 2190 0 0 3935 2659 1905 0 0 4564
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:45 07:15 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 1024 1249 0 0 2182 1464 1042 0 0 2506
Pk Hr Factor 0.757 0.908 0.000 0.000 0.851 0.956 0.908 0.000 0.000 0.935Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
Total
29,501
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
21:4522:00
Total
29,501
19:3019:4520:0020:15
19:0019:15
Walnut Grove Ave Bet. I-10 EB Ramps & Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Hwy
21:30
18:0018:1518:3018:45
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:00
16:4517:0017:15
Thursday
16:1516:30
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:00
13:45
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
9/11/2014
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_007
NB SB EB WB
1,789 1,640 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 3 3 6 31 18 49 00:15 0 4 4 26 20 4600:30 4 4 8 28 19 4700:45 6 13 2 13 8 26 20 105 19 76 39 18101:00 0 3 3 20 23 4301:15 2 2 4 18 14 3201:30 0 1 1 21 21 4201:45 0 2 0 6 0 8 17 76 14 72 31 14802:00 3 2 5 22 16 38 02:15 0 2 2 13 34 47 02:30 0 2 2 22 33 55
02:45 0 3 2 8 2 11 49 106 33 116 82 22203:00 1 4 5 35 19 54 03:15 0 1 1 17 13 30 03:30 0 0 0 18 25 43 03:45 0 1 1 6 1 7 20 90 15 72 35 16204:00 1 1 2 32 28 60 04:15 2 1 3 33 20 53
04:30 3 1 4 28 25 53 04:45 4 10 0 3 4 13 40 133 31 104 71 23705:00 2 1 3 25 33 58 05:15 6 4 10 42 29 71 05:30 9 3 12 33 64 97 05:45 8 25 3 11 11 36 46 146 42 168 88 31406:00 7 1 8 34 48 82
06:15 8 5 13 35 31 66 06:30 21 5 26 21 34 55 06:45 16 52 12 23 28 75 15 105 34 147 49 25207:00 33 21 54 35 24 59 07:15 38 18 56 42 31 73 07:30 50 64 114 28 19 47 07:45 62 183 67 170 129 353 37 142 41 115 78 25708:00 31 42 73 29 21 50 08:15 51 27 78 17 24 41 08:30 43 17 60 10 20 30 08:45 30 155 33 119 63 274 19 75 16 81 35 156
09:00 37 17 54 8 13 21 09:15 25 14 39 10 13 23 09:30 30 14 44 7 20 27 09:45 20 112 22 67 42 179 11 36 17 63 28 9910:00 16 17 33 10 8 18 10:15 28 11 39 3 4 7 10:30 25 17 42 12 14 26
10:45 11 80 21 66 32 146 4 29 9 35 13 6411:00 16 19 35 9 9 18 11:15 18 17 35 3 11 14 11:30 29 18 47 5 4 9 11:45 28 91 19 73 47 164 2 19 2 26 4 45
TOTALS 727 565 1292 1062 1075 2137
SPLIT %56.3%43.7%37.7%49.7%50.3%62.3%
NB SB EB WB
1,789 1,640 0 0
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:15 17:30 17:15
AM Pk Volume 194 200 394 155 185 338
Pk Hr Factor 0.782 0.746 0.764 0.842 0.723 0.871
7 - 9 Volume 338 289 0 0 627 279 272 0 0 551
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 194 200 0 0 394 146 168 0 0 314
Pk Hr Factor 0.782 0.746 0.000 0.000 0.764 0.793 0.656 0.000 0.000 0.809
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Delta Ave S/O Garvey Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
3,429
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
3,429
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_008
NB SB EB WB
0 0 931 1,106
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 2 2 9 19 28 00:15 4 0 4 8 18 2600:30 2 4 6 15 20 3500:45 2 8 4 10 6 18 10 42 12 69 22 11101:00 0 0 0 17 17 3401:15 0 1 1 7 9 1601:30 0 0 0 12 14 2601:45 1 1 0 1 1 2 9 45 10 50 19 9502:00 0 1 1 14 11 25 02:15 1 0 1 21 13 34 02:30 0 0 0 26 23 49
02:45 0 1 0 1 0 2 12 73 39 86 51 15903:00 3 1 4 9 21 30 03:15 0 0 0 10 16 26 03:30 0 0 0 10 16 26 03:45 1 4 0 1 1 5 13 42 14 67 27 10904:00 0 1 1 16 19 35 04:15 1 1 2 9 18 27
04:30 1 2 3 13 12 25 04:45 0 2 0 4 0 6 15 53 21 70 36 12305:00 0 2 2 18 23 41 05:15 1 2 3 17 16 33 05:30 2 1 3 26 19 45 05:45 3 6 4 9 7 15 28 89 28 86 56 17506:00 3 1 4 22 21 43
06:15 4 7 11 13 17 30 06:30 2 10 12 22 24 46 06:45 7 16 5 23 12 39 15 72 17 79 32 15107:00 7 16 23 18 28 46 07:15 12 12 24 16 18 34 07:30 33 27 60 13 32 45 07:45 63 115 29 84 92 199 10 57 21 99 31 15608:00 31 16 47 15 15 30 08:15 16 30 46 11 9 20 08:30 10 31 41 10 9 19 08:45 13 70 9 86 22 156 7 43 10 43 17 86
09:00 9 22 31 8 8 16 09:15 6 15 21 5 5 10 09:30 11 17 28 9 7 16 09:45 13 39 8 62 21 101 7 29 8 28 15 5710:00 11 16 27 6 7 13 10:15 7 18 25 4 8 12 10:30 12 12 24 7 5 12
10:45 14 44 9 55 23 99 7 24 4 24 11 4811:00 14 13 27 3 2 5 11:15 12 9 21 4 5 9 11:30 9 19 28 1 5 6 11:45 12 47 15 56 27 103 1 9 1 13 2 22
TOTALS 353 392 745 578 714 1292
SPLIT %47.4%52.6%36.6%44.7%55.3%63.4%
NB SB EB WB
0 0 931 1,106
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:30 17:15 14:30 17:15
AM Pk Volume 143 106 245 93 99 177
Pk Hr Factor 0.567 0.855 0.666 0.830 0.635 0.790
7 - 9 Volume 0 0 185 170 355 0 0 142 156 298
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 0 0 143 106 245 0 0 89 86 175
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.567 0.855 0.666 0.000 0.000 0.795 0.768 0.781
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
14:30
9/11/2014
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
13:45
Thursday
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:0016:1516:30
14:00
Fern Ave Bet. Delta Ave & Earle Ave
21:3021:4522:00
Total
2,037
19:3019:4520:0020:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
Total
2,037
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
18:0018:1518:3018:4519:00
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
19:15
16:4517:0017:15
14:15
Day:City:Rosemead
Date:Project #:CA14_5528_009
NB SB EB WB
20,060 19,427 0 0
AM PeriodNB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 45 58 103 277 278 555 00:15 45 49 94 298 311 60900:30 40 43 83 292 319 61100:45 37 167 32 182 69 349 278 1145 326 1234 604 237901:00 23 27 50 255 286 54101:15 33 22 55 283 320 60301:30 29 20 49 284 302 58601:45 18 103 18 87 36 190 269 1091 298 1206 567 229702:00 20 26 46 304 240 544 02:15 16 14 30 281 312 593 02:30 15 12 27 292 273 565
02:45 11 62 9 61 20 123 314 1191 302 1127 616 231803:00 14 14 28 284 286 570 03:15 18 14 32 327 320 647 03:30 18 7 25 298 306 604 03:45 16 66 11 46 27 112 327 1236 338 1250 665 248604:00 20 11 31 297 326 623 04:15 26 19 45 313 296 609
04:30 25 24 49 350 330 680 04:45 31 102 25 79 56 181 296 1256 306 1258 602 251405:00 36 35 71 369 316 685 05:15 39 31 70 409 348 757 05:30 67 49 116 374 338 712 05:45 77 219 81 196 158 415 394 1546 328 1330 722 287606:00 80 62 142 388 347 735
06:15 120 81 201 381 336 717 06:30 175 103 278 337 306 643 06:45 192 567 169 415 361 982 352 1458 343 1332 695 279007:00 206 200 406 328 296 624 07:15 257 241 498 302 268 570 07:30 340 287 627 263 270 533 07:45 323 1126 391 1119 714 2245 277 1170 271 1105 548 227508:00 251 421 672 266 232 498 08:15 307 364 671 271 252 523 08:30 272 333 605 215 204 419 08:45 347 1177 361 1479 708 2656 218 970 214 902 432 1872
09:00 292 350 642 200 197 397 09:15 269 262 531 200 209 409 09:30 290 283 573 199 192 391 09:45 332 1183 284 1179 616 2362 178 777 170 768 348 154510:00 306 252 558 174 170 344 10:15 271 243 514 169 142 311 10:30 321 298 619 117 143 260
10:45 326 1224 263 1056 589 2280 112 572 106 561 218 113311:00 315 268 583 99 117 216 11:15 337 249 586 86 95 181 11:30 364 283 647 71 79 150 11:45 312 1328 307 1107 619 2435 68 324 57 348 125 672
TOTALS 7324 7006 14330 12736 12421 25157
SPLIT %51.1%48.9%36.3%50.6%49.4%63.7%
NB SB EB WB
20,060 19,427 0 0
AM Peak Hour 10:45 07:45 07:30 17:15 17:15 17:15
AM Pk Volume 1342 1509 2684 1565 1361 2926
Pk Hr Factor 0.922 0.896 0.940 0.957 0.978 0.966
7 - 9 Volume 2303 2598 0 0 4901 2802 2588 0 0 5390
7 - 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:30 17:00 17:00 17:00
7 - 9 Pk Volume 1221 1509 0 0 2684 1546 1330 0 0 2876
Pk Hr Factor 0.898 0.896 0.000 0.000 0.940 0.945 0.955 0.000 0.000 0.950Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
4 - 6 Peak Hour4 - 6 Pk
Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
20:45
Total
39,487
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:1522:3022:4523:0023:1523:30
21:4522:00
Total
39,487
19:3019:4520:0020:15
19:0019:15
San Gabriel Blvd Bet. I-10 WB Ramps & Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Hwy
21:30
18:0018:1518:3018:45
17:30
17:45
15:1515:3015:4516:00
16:4517:0017:15
Thursday
16:1516:30
14:0014:1514:3014:45
15:00
13:45
12:0012:1512:3012:4513:00
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:1513:30
9/11/2014
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
APPENDIX B
Level of Service Computation Reports (ICU)
EXISTING (2014) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 3. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 61 80 0.04*0.05 *
NT 2 3200 1018 1244 0.32 0.39
NR 1 1600 22 37 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 79 81 0.05 0.05
ST 2 3200 1069 1181 0.38*0.41 *
SR 0 0 149 129 0.09 0.08
EL 1 1600 126 121 0.08*0.08
ET 1 1600 158 177 0.16 0.17 *
ER 0 0 91 90 0.06 0.06
WL 1 1600 40 30 0.03 0.02 *
WT 1 1600 186 109 0.18*0.09
WR 0 0 97 30 0.06 0.02
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.78 0.75
LOS C C
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 4. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 74 122 0.05 0.08
NT 2 3200 655 917 0.20*0.29 *
NR 1 1600 154 171 0.10 0.11
SL 1 1600 209 249 0.13*0.16 *
ST 2 3200 838 849 0.26 0.27
SR 1 1600 141 170 0.09 0.11
EL 1 1600 186 228 0.12*0.14
ET 2 3200 650 824 0.20 0.26 *
ER 1 1600 69 92 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 154 166 0.10 0.10 *
WT 2 3200 773 664 0.24*0.21
WR 1 1600 212 196 0.13 0.12
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.79 0.91
LOS C E
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 5. Delta Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 156 127 0.10 0.08 *
NT 1 1600 2 2 0.12*0.09
NR 0 0 37 19 0.02 0.01
SL 0 0 1 4 0.00*0.00
ST 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.01 *
SR 0 0 3 5 0.00 0.00
EL 1 1600 6 11 0.00 0.01
ET 2 3200 884 1068 0.33*0.38 *
ER 0 0 176 146 0.11 0.09
WL 1 1600 21 23 0.01*0.01 *
WT 2 3200 977 922 0.31 0.29
WR 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.56 0.58
LOS A A
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 7. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 157 104 0.10 *0.07
NT 2 3200 465 955 0.15 0.31 *
NR 0 0 13 23 0.01 0.01
SL 1 1600 101 130 0.06 0.08 *
ST 2 3200 762 690 0.28 *0.26
SR 0 0 134 142 0.08 0.09
EL 0 0 216 311 0.14 0.19
ET 1 1600 50 86 0.17 *0.25 *
ER 1 1600 126 107 0.08 0.07
WL 0 0 10 4 0.01 0.00
WT 1 1600 79 46 0.06 *0.03 *
WR 1 1600 245 232 0.15 0.15
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT 0.06 0.07
ICU 0.77 0.84
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 8. I-10 EB Ramp (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 0 0 0.00*0.00 *
NT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SL 0 0 251 289 0.16 0.18
ST 1 1600 0 0 0.16*0.19 *
SR 0 0 6 8 0.00 0.01
EL 0 0 65 38 0.04 0.02
ET 1 1600 159 219 0.14*0.16 *
ER 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WT 1 1600 232 183 0.23*0.18 *
WR 0 0 142 107 0.09 0.07
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.63 0.63
LOS B B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 9. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 115 105 0.07*0.07
NT 2 3200 370 774 0.14 0.29 *
NR 0 0 85 156 0.05 0.10
SL 1 1600 198 167 0.12 0.10 *
ST 2 3200 636 573 0.24*0.21
SR 0 0 117 87 0.07 0.05
EL 1 1600 107 141 0.07*0.09 *
ET 2 3200 738 779 0.23 0.24
ER(d)1 1600 55 95 0.03 0.06
WL 1 1600 126 109 0.08 0.07
WT 2 3200 814 777 0.25*0.24 *
WR(d)1 1600 101 188 0.06 0.12
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.73 0.82
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 10. Delta Ave (N/S) and Fern Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing Peak Hours: Thursday, September 25, 2014 DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 23 47 0.01*0.03
NT 2 3200 380 960 0.12 0.30 *
NR(d)1 1600 10 33 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 24 55 0.02 0.03 *
ST 2 3200 711 618 0.24*0.22
SR 0 0 65 80 0.04 0.05
EL 0 0 88 23 0.06*0.01 *
ET 1 1600 50 35 0.12 0.06
ER 0 0 46 41 0.03 0.03
WL 0 0 12 20 0.01 0.01
WT 1 1600 59 33 0.09*0.08 *
WR 0 0 65 72 0.04 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.50 0.52
LOS A A
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing.xls]Int. 8
BASELINE (2017) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 3. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 63 82 0.04*0.05 *
NT 2 3200 1068 1300 0.33 0.41
NR 1 1600 23 38 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 81 83 0.05 0.05
ST 2 3200 1117 1242 0.40*0.43 *
SR 0 0 154 133 0.10 0.08
EL 1 1600 130 125 0.08*0.08 *
ET 1 1600 163 182 0.16 0.17
ER 0 0 94 93 0.06 0.06
WL 1 1600 41 31 0.03 0.02
WT 1 1600 192 112 0.18*0.12 *
WR 0 0 100 80 0.06 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.80 0.78
LOS C C
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 4. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 76 126 0.05 0.08
NT 2 3200 675 945 0.21*0.30 *
NR 1 1600 161 181 0.10 0.11
SL 1 1600 217 263 0.14*0.16 *
ST 2 3200 863 875 0.27 0.27
SR 1 1600 157 194 0.10 0.12
EL 1 1600 208 248 0.13*0.16 *
ET 2 3200 692 896 0.22 0.28
ER 1 1600 71 95 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 162 175 0.10 0.11
WT 2 3200 823 735 0.26*0.23 *
WR 1 1600 221 207 0.14 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.84 0.95
LOS D E
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 5. Delta Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 161 131 0.10 0.08
NT 1 1600 2 2 0.13*0.10 *
NR 0 0 38 20 0.02 0.01
SL 0 0 1 4 0.00*0.00 *
ST 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.01
SR 0 0 3 5 0.00 0.00
EL 1 1600 6 11 0.00 0.01
ET 2 3200 937 1158 0.35*0.41 *
ER 0 0 181 150 0.11 0.09
WL 1 1600 22 24 0.01*0.02 *
WT 2 3200 1040 1010 0.33 0.32
WR 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.59 0.63
LOS A B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 7. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 162 107 0.10 *0.07
NT 2 3200 485 991 0.16 0.32 *
NR 0 0 13 24 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 104 134 0.07 0.08 *
ST 2 3200 786 714 0.29 *0.27
SR 0 0 139 149 0.09 0.09
EL 0 0 223 320 0.14 0.20
ET 1 1600 52 89 0.17 *0.26 *
ER 1 1600 131 113 0.08 0.07
WL 0 0 10 4 0.01 0.00
WT 1 1600 81 47 0.06 *0.03 *
WR 1 1600 252 239 0.16 0.15
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT 0.06 0.07
ICU 0.78 0.86
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 8. I-10 EB Ramp (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 0 0 0.00*0.00 *
NT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SL 0 0 260 301 0.16 0.19
ST 1 1600 0 0 0.17*0.19 *
SR 0 0 6 8 0.00 0.01
EL 0 0 68 42 0.04 0.03
ET 1 1600 164 226 0.15*0.17 *
ER 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WT 1 1600 240 192 0.24*0.19 *
WR 0 0 146 110 0.09 0.07
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.60 0.65
LOS A B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 9. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:03-Feb-15
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 118 110 0.07*0.07
NT 2 3200 381 797 0.15 0.30 *
NR 0 0 89 164 0.06 0.10
SL 1 1600 208 186 0.13 0.12 *
ST 2 3200 655 590 0.24*0.21
SR 0 0 122 93 0.08 0.06
EL 1 1600 112 148 0.07*0.09 *
ET 2 3200 785 858 0.25 0.27
ER(d)1 1600 58 99 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 132 114 0.08 0.07
WT 2 3200 871 860 0.27*0.27 *
WR(d)1 1600 113 203 0.07 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.75 0.88
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 4 - Future CIP
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 10. Delta Ave (N/S) and Fern Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 Weekday Peak hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 24 48 0.02*0.03
NT 2 3200 394 994 0.12 0.31 *
NR(d)1 1600 10 34 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 25 57 0.02 0.04 *
ST 2 3200 736 640 0.25*0.23
SR 0 0 67 82 0.04 0.05
EL 0 0 91 24 0.06*0.02 *
ET 1 1600 52 36 0.12 0.06
ER 0 0 47 42 0.03 0.03
WL 0 0 12 21 0.01 0.01
WT 1 1600 61 34 0.09*0.08 *
WR 0 0 67 74 0.04 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.52 0.55
LOS A A
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017.xls]Int. 8
EXISTING (2014) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 3. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 61 80 0.04*0.05 *
NT 2 3200 1022 1250 0.32 0.39
NR 1 1600 22 37 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 79 81 0.05 0.05
ST 2 3200 1072 1187 0.38*0.41 *
SR 0 0 149 129 0.09 0.08
EL 1 1600 126 121 0.08*0.08 *
ET 1 1600 158 177 0.16 0.17
ER 0 0 91 90 0.06 0.06
WL 1 1600 40 30 0.03 0.02
WT 1 1600 186 109 0.18*0.12 *
WR 0 0 97 78 0.06 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.78 0.76
LOS C C
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 4. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 74 122 0.05 0.08
NT 2 3200 655 917 0.20*0.29 *
NR 1 1600 157 176 0.10 0.11
SL 1 1600 212 255 0.13*0.16 *
ST 2 3200 838 849 0.26 0.27
SR 1 1600 141 170 0.09 0.11
EL 1 1600 186 228 0.12*0.14
ET 2 3200 654 830 0.20 0.26 *
ER 1 1600 69 92 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 158 170 0.10 0.11 *
WT 2 3200 777 670 0.24*0.21
WR 1 1600 216 202 0.14 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.79 0.92
LOS C E
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 5. Delta Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 168 143 0.11 0.09
NT 1 1600 2 2 0.13*0.11 *
NR 0 0 45 30 0.03 0.02
SL 0 0 1 4 0.00*0.00 *
ST 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.01
SR 0 0 3 5 0.00 0.00
EL 1 1600 6 11 0.00 0.01
ET 2 3200 884 1068 0.33*0.38 *
ER 0 0 186 163 0.12 0.10
WL 1 1600 28 35 0.02*0.02 *
WT 2 3200 977 922 0.31 0.29
WR 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.58 0.61
LOS A B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 7. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 159 107 0.10 *0.07
NT 2 3200 466 956 0.15 0.31 *
NR 0 0 13 23 0.01 0.01
SL 1 1600 101 130 0.06 0.08 *
ST 2 3200 765 695 0.28 *0.26
SR 0 0 134 142 0.08 0.09
EL 0 0 216 311 0.14 0.19
ET 1 1600 50 86 0.17 *0.25 *
ER 1 1600 126 107 0.08 0.07
WL 0 0 10 4 0.01 0.00
WT 1 1600 79 46 0.06 *0.03 *
WR 1 1600 245 232 0.15 0.15
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT 0.06 0.07
ICU 0.78 0.84
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 8. I-10 EB Ramp (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 0 0 0.00*0.00 *
NT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SL 0 0 251 289 0.16 0.18
ST 1 1600 0 0 0.16*0.19 *
SR 0 0 6 8 0.00 0.01
EL 0 0 65 38 0.04 0.02
ET 1 1600 159 219 0.14*0.16 *
ER 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WT 1 1600 232 183 0.24*0.18 *
WR 0 0 144 110 0.09 0.07
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.64 0.63
LOS B B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 9. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 116 106 0.07*0.07
NT 2 3200 370 774 0.14 0.29 *
NR 0 0 85 156 0.05 0.10
SL 1 1600 198 167 0.12 0.10 *
ST 2 3200 636 573 0.24*0.21
SR 0 0 120 92 0.08 0.06
EL 1 1600 110 145 0.07*0.09 *
ET 2 3200 742 785 0.23 0.25
ER(d)1 1600 56 96 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 126 109 0.08 0.07
WT 2 3200 817 783 0.26*0.24 *
WR(d)1 1600 101 188 0.06 0.12
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.74 0.82
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 10. Delta Ave (N/S) and Fern Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Existing with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 23 47 0.01*0.03
NT 2 3200 381 961 0.12 0.30 *
NR(d)1 1600 10 33 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 24 55 0.02 0.03 *
ST 2 3200 712 619 0.24*0.22
SR 0 0 65 80 0.04 0.05
EL 0 0 88 23 0.06*0.01 *
ET 1 1600 50 35 0.12 0.06
ER 0 0 46 41 0.03 0.03
WL 0 0 12 20 0.01 0.01
WT 1 1600 59 33 0.09*0.08 *
WR 0 0 65 72 0.04 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.50 0.52
LOS A A
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Existing + Project.xls]Int. 8
BASELINE (2017) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 3. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 63 82 0.04*0.05 *
NT 2 3200 1072 1306 0.34 0.41
NR 1 1600 23 38 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 81 83 0.05 0.05
ST 2 3200 1120 1248 0.40*0.43 *
SR 0 0 154 133 0.10 0.08
EL 1 1600 130 125 0.08*0.08 *
ET 1 1600 163 182 0.16 0.17
ER 0 0 94 93 0.06 0.06
WL 1 1600 41 31 0.03 0.02
WT 1 1600 192 112 0.18*0.12 *
WR 0 0 100 80 0.06 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.80 0.78
LOS C C
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 4. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 76 126 0.05 0.08
NT 2 3200 675 945 0.21*0.30 *
NR 1 1600 164 186 0.10 0.12
SL 1 1600 220 269 0.14*0.17 *
ST 2 3200 863 875 0.27 0.27
SR 1 1600 159 194 0.10 0.12
EL 1 1600 208 248 0.13*0.16 *
ET 2 3200 696 902 0.22 0.28
ER 1 1600 71 95 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 166 179 0.10 0.11
WT 2 3200 827 741 0.26*0.23 *
WR 1 1600 225 213 0.14 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.84 0.96
LOS D E
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 5. Delta Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:03-Feb-15
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 173 147 0.11 0.09
NT 1 1600 2 2 0.14*0.11 *
NR 0 0 46 31 0.03 0.02
SL 0 0 1 4 0.00*0.00 *
ST 1 1600 2 2 0.00 0.01
SR 0 0 3 5 0.00 0.00
EL 1 1600 6 11 0.00 0.01
ET 2 3200 938 1162 0.35*0.42 *
ER 0 0 191 167 0.12 0.10
WL 1 1600 29 36 0.02*0.02 *
WT 2 3200 1043 1013 0.33 0.32
WR 0 0 0 2 0.00 0.00
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.61 0.65
LOS B B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 4 - CIP
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 7. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 164 110 0.10 *0.07
NT 2 3200 486 992 0.16 0.32 *
NR 0 0 13 24 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 104 134 0.07 0.08 *
ST 2 3200 789 719 0.29 *0.27
SR 0 0 139 149 0.09 0.09
EL 0 0 223 320 0.14 0.20
ET 1 1600 52 89 0.17 *0.26 *
ER 1 1600 131 113 0.08 0.07
WL 0 0 10 4 0.01 0.00
WT 1 1600 81 47 0.06 *0.03 *
WR 1 1600 252 239 0.16 0.15
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT 0.06 0.07
ICU 0.78 0.86
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 8. I-10 EB Ramp (N/S) and Hellman Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 0 0 0 0 0.00*0.00 *
NT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
NR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
SL 0 0 260 301 0.16 0.19
ST 1 1600 0 0 0.17*0.19 *
SR 0 0 6 8 0.00 0.01
EL 0 0 68 42 0.04 0.03
ET 1 1600 164 226 0.15*0.17 *
ER 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
WT 1 1600 240 192 0.24*0.19 *
WR 0 0 148 113 0.09 0.07
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.66 0.65
LOS B B
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 9. Walnut Grove Ave (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:03-Feb-15
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 119 111 0.07*0.07
NT 2 3200 381 797 0.15 0.30 *
NR 0 0 89 164 0.06 0.10
SL 1 1600 208 186 0.13 0.12 *
ST 2 3200 655 590 0.24*0.22
SR 0 0 125 98 0.08 0.06
EL 1 1600 115 152 0.07*0.10 *
ET 2 3200 789 864 0.25 0.27
ER(d)1 1600 59 100 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 132 114 0.08 0.07
WT 2 3200 874 866 0.27*0.27 *
WR(d)1 1600 113 203 0.07 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.75 0.89
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 4 - CIP
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 10. Delta Ave (N/S) and Fern Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours DATE:26-Nov-14
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 24 48 0.02*0.03
NT 2 3200 395 995 0.12 0.31 *
NR(d)1 1600 10 34 0.01 0.02
SL 1 1600 25 57 0.02 0.04 *
ST 2 3200 747 641 0.25*0.23
SR 0 0 67 82 0.04 0.05
EL 0 0 91 24 0.06*0.02 *
ET 1 1600 52 36 0.12 0.06
ER 0 0 47 42 0.03 0.03
WL 0 0 12 21 0.01 0.01
WT 1 1600 61 34 0.09*0.08 *
WR 0 0 67 74 0.04 0.05
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.52 0.55
LOS A A
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 8
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
CALCULATION WORKSHEET
INTERSECTION: 4. San Gabriel Blvd (N/S) and Garvey Ave (E/W)
CONDITION: Baseline 2017 with Project Peak Hours with Future CIP Imps DATE:03-Feb-15
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS
MOVEMENT LANES
SAT.
CAPACITY VOLUME V/C
(C)AM PM AM PM
NL 1 1600 76 126 0.05 0.08
NT 2 3200 675 945 0.21*0.30 *
NR 1 1600 164 186 0.10 0.12
SL 1 1600 220 269 0.14*0.17 *
ST 2 3200 863 875 0.27 0.27
SR 1 1600 159 194 0.10 0.12
EL 1 1600 208 248 0.13*0.16 *
ET 3 4800 697 906 0.15 0.19
ER 1 1600 71 95 0.04 0.06
WL 1 1600 166 179 0.10 0.11
WT 3 4800 830 744 0.17*0.16 *
WR 1 1600 225 213 0.14 0.13
CLEARANCE 0.10 0.10
CRITICAL RIGHT --
ICU 0.75 0.89
LOS C D
NOTE:ICU is the sum of critical movements denoted by an asterisk (*)
plus critical right-turn value if any.
R:\Projects\1157_0700\Eng\TechDocs\Reports\Traffic Study\Tables\ICU\[AM.PM - Baseline 2017 + Project.xls]Int. 4 - CIP
APPENDIX C
Level of Service Computation Reports (HCM)
EXISTING (2014) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 13:51:08 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1347 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1347 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1347 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1347 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 674 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.33 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 13:53:37 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1062 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1062 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1062 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1062 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 531 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 552 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 552 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.8 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 13:55:57 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 543
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 544
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 544
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.33
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.4
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.8
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.8
ApproachLOS: * * * B
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:01:20 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 24.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 681
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 454
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 454
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.61
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 4.0
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 24.6
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 24.6
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:02:46 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.4]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1168 0 0 0 133 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1168 0 0 0 133 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1168 0 0 0 133 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1168 0 0 0 133 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 584 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 515 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 515 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.26 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * B * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.4 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * B *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:03:47 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.1]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1179 0 0 0 217 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1179 0 0 0 217 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1179 0 0 0 217 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1179 0 0 0 217 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 590 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 512 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 512 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.42 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.1 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:04:56 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.7]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 492
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 581
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 581
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.43
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.1
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.7
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.7
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:05:43 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 30.7]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 600
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 505
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 505
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.75
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 6.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 30.7
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * D
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 30.7
ApproachLOS: * * * D
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:11:44 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.0 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 99.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1159 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1640 xxxx 480 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 610 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 93 xxxx 537 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 610 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 80 xxxx 537 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.19 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.25 xxxx 0.39 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 1.9 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 12.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 276.9 xxxx 16.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:12:48 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[174.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1039 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1933 xxxx 422 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 677 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 59 xxxx 586 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 677 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 44 xxxx 586 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.34 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.99 xxxx 0.45 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 1.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx 2.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 13.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 659.9 xxxx 16.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 174.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
BASELINE (2017) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:22:11 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.9]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1389 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1389 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1389 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1389 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 695 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 446 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 446 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.38 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.7 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:23:35 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1097 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1097 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1097 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1097 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 549 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 540 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 540 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 3.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:24:20 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.3]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 560
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 532
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 532
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.3
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.3
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:24:53 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 26.9]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1405 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 703
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 441
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 441
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.65
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 4.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 26.9
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * D
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 26.9
ApproachLOS: * * * D
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:25:39 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 15.0]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1218 0 0 0 138 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1218 0 0 0 138 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1218 0 0 0 138 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1218 0 0 0 138 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 609 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 499 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 499 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.28 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * B * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.0 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * B *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:26:36 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18.4]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1237 0 0 0 227 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1237 0 0 0 227 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1237 0 0 0 227 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1237 0 0 0 227 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 619 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 493 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 493 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.46 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 18.4 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 18.4 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:27:37 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.3]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 509
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 569
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 569
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.3
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.3
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.3
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:28:10 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 35.3]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 620
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 492
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 492
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.80
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 7.4
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 35.3
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * E
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 35.3
ApproachLOS: * * * E
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:28:47 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[124.2]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1195 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1695 xxxx 495 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 591 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 85 xxxx 525 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 591 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 72 xxxx 525 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.20 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.42 xxxx 0.42 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx 2.0 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 12.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 352.9 xxxx 16.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 124.2 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:29:23 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[218.5]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1074 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2001 xxxx 436 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 657 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 53 xxxx 574 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 657 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 38 xxxx 574 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.36 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.35 xxxx 0.48 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 1.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.9 xxxx 2.6 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 13.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 838.9 xxxx 17.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 218.5 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
EXISTING (2014) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:36:39 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 674 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.33 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:37:31 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.9]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1065 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1065 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1065 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1065 0 0 0 275 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 533 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 551 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 551 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.8 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:40:14 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 544
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 543
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 543
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.33
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.4
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 14.8
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.8
ApproachLOS: * * * B
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:40:56 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 24.7]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 277
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 683
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 453
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 453
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.61
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 4.0
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 24.7
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 24.7
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:41:44 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1348 0 0 0 150 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 674 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 458 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.33 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:42:22 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.3]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1182 0 0 0 220 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1182 0 0 0 220 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1182 0 0 0 220 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1182 0 0 0 220 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 591 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 511 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 511 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.43 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.3 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:43:15 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.8]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 988 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 494
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 579
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 579
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.43
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.1
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.8
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.8
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:43:49 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 31.0]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 603
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 503
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 503
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.76
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 6.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 31.0
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * D
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 31.0
ApproachLOS: * * * D
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:44:37 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 99.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1160 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1641 xxxx 481 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 610 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 93 xxxx 537 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 610 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 80 xxxx 537 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.19 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.26 xxxx 0.40 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx 1.9 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 12.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 278.3 xxxx 16.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:45:19 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 22.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[174.5]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1041 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1935 xxxx 423 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 676 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 59 xxxx 585 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 676 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 44 xxxx 585 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.34 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.99 xxxx 0.46 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 1.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx 2.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 13.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 663.7 xxxx 16.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 174.5 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
BASELINE (2017) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:49:58 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.9]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1390 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1390 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1390 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1390 0 0 0 169 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 695 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 446 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 446 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.38 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.7 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 17.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:50:37 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 19.9]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1100 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1100 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1100 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1100 0 0 0 302 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 550 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 539 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 539 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 3.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 19.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 19.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:51:10 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.3]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 561
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 531
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 531
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.34
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 15.3
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.3
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:52:52 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 WB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: D[ 27.0]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 704
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 440
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 440
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.65
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 4.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 27.0
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * D
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 27.0
ApproachLOS: * * * D
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:53:35 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18.7]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1021 319 0 1219 343 0 0 140 0 0 254
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1021 319 0 1219 343 0 0 140 0 0 254
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1021 319 0 1219 343 0 0 140 0 0 254
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1021 319 0 1219 343 0 0 140 0 0 254
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx 6.9
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 610 xxxx xxxx 511
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 443 xxxx xxxx 513
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 443 xxxx xxxx 513
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.32 xxxx xxxx 0.49
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 1.3 xxxx xxxx 2.7
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.8 xxxxx xxxx 18.7
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.8 18.7
ApproachLOS: * * C C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:54:11 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 a. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps EBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0 0 0 1240 0 0 0 230 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 0 1240 0 0 0 230 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 0 1240 0 0 0 230 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 0 0 0 1240 0 0 0 230 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 620 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 492 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 492 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.47 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.5 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 18.6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 18.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * C *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:54:58 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 16.4]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 511
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 567
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 567
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.45
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 2.3
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 16.4
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * C
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 16.4
ApproachLOS: * * * C
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 14:55:32 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #2 b. San Gabriel Blvd / I-10 EB Ramps WBR
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 35.7]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 1246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 0 1246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 0 1246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 0 1246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 392
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 623
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 490
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 490
Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.80
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 7.5
Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 35.7
LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * E
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 35.7
ApproachLOS: * * * E
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Tue Feb 3, 2015 16:18:41 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[129.2]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 123 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 123 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 123 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 123 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1196 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1707 xxxx 496 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 591 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 84 xxxx 525 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 591 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 70 xxxx 525 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.21 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.46 xxxx 0.42 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.6 xxxx 2.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 12.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 370.6 xxxx 16.7 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 129.2 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Tue Feb 3, 2015 16:20:23 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Average Delay (sec/veh): 28.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[225.6]
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 242 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 242 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 242 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FinalVolume: 242 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 xxxx 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 1076 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2014 xxxx 437 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 656 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 52 xxxx 573 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 656 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 37 xxxx 573 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Volume/Cap: 0.37 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 2.41 xxxx 0.49 xxxx xxxx xxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 1.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 10.0 xxxx 2.7 xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Control Del: 13.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 874.2 xxxx 17.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: B * * * * * F * C * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * *
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 225.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: * * F *
********************************************************************************
Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.
********************************************************************************
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
APPENDIX D
Signal Warrant Analysis
INTERSECTION 6
EXISTING (2014) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:17:52 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: AM Peak
Command: AM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: AM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:17:52 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:17:53 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.6 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=8.6]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=312]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2491]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:17:53 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 113 907 0 0 960 199 100 0 212 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2179
Minor Approach Volume: 312
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 39 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:18:47 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: PM Peak
Command: PM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: PM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:18:47 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:18:47 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 174.8 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=17.1]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=353]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2887]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:18:47 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 228 1267 0 0 843 196 87 0 266 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2534
Minor Approach Volume: 353
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -26 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
INTERSECTION 6
BASELINE (2017) WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:19:53 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: AM Peak
Command: AM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: AM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:19:53 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:19:53 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 124.2 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=11.1]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=322]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2573]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:19:53 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 118 938 0 0 990 205 103 0 219 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2251
Minor Approach Volume: 322
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 25 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:20:45 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: PM Peak
Command: PM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: PM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:20:45 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:20:45 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 218.5 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=22.3]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=367]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2988]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:20:45 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 237 1310 0 0 872 202 90 0 277 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2621
Minor Approach Volume: 367
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -40 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
INTERSECTION 6
EXISTING (2014) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:21:37 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: AM Peak
Command: AM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: AM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:21:37 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:21:37 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 99.6 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=8.7]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=314]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2495]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:21:37 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 113 908 0 0 961 199 100 0 214 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2181
Minor Approach Volume: 314
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 39 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:02 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: PM Peak
Command: PM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: PM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:02 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:02 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 174.5 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=17.3]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=356]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2892]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:02 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 228 1267 0 0 845 196 87 0 269 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2536
Minor Approach Volume: 356
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -26 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
INTERSECTION 6
BASELINE (2017) WITH PROJECT
WEEKDAY AM/PM PEAK HOUR
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:41 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: AM Peak
Command: AM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: AM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:41 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:41 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 118 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 124.2 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=11.2]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=324]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2577]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
AM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:22:41 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 118 939 0 0 991 205 103 0 221 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2253
Minor Approach Volume: 324
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 25 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:23:05 Page 1-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario Report
Scenario: PM Peak
Command: PM Peak
Volume: Default Volume
Geometry: Default Geometry
Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee
Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation
Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution
Paths: Default Path
Routes: Default Route
Configuration: PM Peak
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:23:05 Page 2-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Warrant Summary Report
Intersection Base Met Future Met
[Del / Vol] [Del / Vol]
# 6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps Yes / Yes ??? / ???
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:23:05 Page 3-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 237 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 218.4 xxxxxx
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach[eastbound][lanes=2][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=22.4]
SUCCEED - Vehicle-hours >= 5 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=370]
SUCCEED - Approach volume >= 150 for two or more lane approach.
Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=2994]
SUCCEED - Total volume greater than or equal to 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE
PM Peak Wed Nov 26, 2014 16:23:05 Page 3-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
********************************************************************************
Intersection #6 Walnut Grove Ave / I-10 WB Ramps
********************************************************************************
Base Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Vol: 237 1311 0 0 874 202 90 0 280 0 0 0
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------|
Major Street Volume: 2624
Minor Approach Volume: 370
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: -41 [less than minimum of 150]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an
"indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting
a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant
are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based
signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).
The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace
a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible
jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond
the scope of this software, may yield different results.
Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to VA CONSULTING, IRVINE