Level of Service criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group in question.
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service Control Delay (Sec/Veh)
A
B
C
D
E
F
10 and 20and 35 and 55and ≤80
> 80
Level of Service (LOS) values are used to describe intersection operations with service levels varying from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition). The following descriptions summarize HCM criteria for each level of service:
LOS A describes operations with very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay values.
LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of delay.
LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the lane groups. It may also occur at high v/c ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels.
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement �
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 40 369 375 70 446 458 120 0 0 169 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.18 0.44 0.44 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 ' 0.00 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 1.6 9.3 9.4 3.7 18.2 18.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Ili ft+
37 608 76 64 777 54 24
43 59 46_
37 608 76 64 777 54 24 43 43 59 46 51
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0—"I=
1.00 MM1.00 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.00
No _
No No
40 661 _83 70 845 59 26 47 64 50 55
2 2 2 2 2 2 2- 2 - 2 2 2 2
272 1800 226 384 1909 133 138 247 224 230 180 178
I 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 617 3177 398 716 3370 235 289 705 640 540 515 509
617 1777 1799 716 1777 1828 1634 0 0 1565 0 0
5.5 13.6 13.7 10.3 26.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0MER 0.0
32.1 13.6 13.7 24.0 26.7 26.7 5.8 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0
1.00 _0.22 1.00
272 1007 1019 384 1007 1036 608 0 0 589 0 0
0.13 0.22
0.39 0.38 X0.33
272 1007 1019 384 1007 1036 608 0 0 589 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
14.2 36.9 32.0 32.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0
1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0
o.o o.o o.o I o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o
I
28.7 15.3 15.3 37.7 33.1 33.1 27.9 0.0 0.0 29.3 0.0 0.0
B D C C C
C
784
974
120
169
7 15.9
33.4 27.9
B
C
C
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 68.0
42.0 68.0
7.8 34.1
10.6 28.7
0.8 5.3
1.1 7.0
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh
HCM 7th LOS
26.1 C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
EH 4+ E4+ 4+
15 61 17 17 51 41 8 48 9 25 71 81
15 61 17 17 51 41 8 48 9 25 71 81
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 66 18 18 55 45 9 52 10 27 77 88
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.2
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.1 8.6
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 16% 16% 14%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 8 15 17 25
Through Vol 48 61 51 71
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 71 101 118 192
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.09 0.129 0.146 0.229
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.595 4.584 4.449 4.278
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 779 782 806 841
Service Time 2.624 2.612 2.477 2.3
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ji 0.091 0.129 0.146 0.228
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9
74% 66% 47% 40%
14% 18% 38% 46%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
65 93 109 177
r
9 17 41 81
1 1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
4# 4+ 4# 4+
16 97 17 4 59 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
16 97 17 4 59 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
18 4 64 27 10 21 3 25 28 49
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 7.8
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
7.8 7.9
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 29% 12% 5% 24%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 9 J 16 4 23
Through Vol 19 97 59 26
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 34 141 96 102
Geometry Grp 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.169 0.112 0.121
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.572 4.3 4.228 4.259
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap Min 785 839 849 844
Service Time 2.59 2.3 2.244 2.274
HCM Lane V/C Ratio jli 0.043 0.168 0.113 0.121
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.8 8.2 7.8 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4
61% 1 75% 67% 28%
10% 13% 28% 48%
Stop I Stop Stop Stop
31 130 88 94
T
25 45
M1
1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
1 -k -t
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili 4 ff r li ft+ 'Pi 44i Pr
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 518 146 126 525 307 145 770 120 284 819 207 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 518 146 126 525 307 145 770 120 284 819 207 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h _ 82 563 159 137 571 334 158 837 130 309 890 225 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %'2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 105 673 189 148 963 426 185 1090 169 267 1421 725 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2733 769 1781 3554 1575 1781 3081 478 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 82 365 357 137 571 334 158 483 484 309 890 225 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1725 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1782 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 24.3 24.5 9.2 16.8 23.6 10.5 28.9 28.9 18.0 24.1 10.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 24.3 24.5 9.2 16.8 23.6 10.5 28.9 28.9 18.0 24.1 10.8 Prop In Lane = 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 437 425 148 963 426 185 629 631 267 1421 725 V/C Ratio(X) Mill 0.78 0.84 0.84 0.92 0.59 0.78 0.85 0.77 0.77 1.16 0.63 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 489 474 148 977 433 208 629 631 267 1421 725 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.1 52.7 52.8 54.6 38.0 40.5 52.9 F4.4 34.4 51.0 28.8 20.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.0 10.3 10.9 51.4 0.9 9.0 24.0 8.1 8.1 104.1 2.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/1n 5.3 18.5 18.2 10.2 11.7 15.1 9.7 19.6 19.7 23.7 15.8 7.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 73.1 63.0 63.7 106.0 39.0 49.4 76.8 42.5 42.5 155.1 30.9 21.6 LnGrp LOS E E E F D D E D D F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/vei
Approach LOS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
804
64.4 E
1042
51.1 D
1125
47.3 D
1424
56.4 E
Timer - Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 47.5 15.0 34.5 17.5 53.0 12.0 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),2D.0 30.9 11.2 26.5 12.5 26.1 7.5 25.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.3 0.1 6.5 0.0 2.9 HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 54.3
HCM 7th LOS
D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
t
Movement
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
4 4T+
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 24 I 55 69 26 51 61 920 84 69 1021 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 24 55 69 26 51 61 920 84 69 1021 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 26 60 75 28 55 66 I000 91 75 1110 s 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 75 64 98 193 62 227 385 2453 223 407 2598 101 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 174 442 685 863 430 1582 487 3291 299 517 3487 135 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 114 0 0 103 0 55 66 540 551 75 565 588 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1301 0 0 1292 0 1582 487 1777 1814 517 1777 1845 Q Serve(g_s), s r
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.8 16.0 10.0 10.0 15.6 10.7 10.7 Prop In Lane MIEL 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 237 0 0 255 0 227 385 1324 1352 407 1324 1375 V/C Ratio(X) MID 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00g 0.24 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h 600 0 0 587 0 598 385 1324 1352 407 1324 1375 HCM Platoon Ratio a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.8 0.0 0.0 35.8 34.2 7.3 4.2 4.2 7.1 4.3 4.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.0 1.0 5.2 5.3 1.1 5.3 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.4 0.0 0.0 36.8 0.0 34.7 8.2 5.1 5.1 7.7 5.0 4.9 LnGrp LOS A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
4 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 • 0.99 1.00
0.9 No I No No
■
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2i2
1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 5.3 10.0 10.0 5.6 10.7 10.7
0.53 0.73 r 1.00 1.00 • 0.17 1.00 0.07
114 158
1157 1228
5.3 5.1
D D
A A
Timer - Assiened Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 34.0 46.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 10.4 17.6 9.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
72.1 17.9
72.1 17.9
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
9.2 0.6 9.9 0.8
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.4
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Existing Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
t
Movement M. EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations E) [) 'Pi ft+ vi 444
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 39 65 38 23 102 45 884 36 109 963 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 39 65 38 23 102 45 884 36 109 963 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 IIIMIII1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No' Ell No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 42 71-41 25 111 49 961 39 118 1047 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % — 2 2 2III. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2- 2
Cap, veh/h 121 89 118 114 51 153 410 2386 97 439 2421 67 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 309 602 798 274 344 1038 524 3481 141 563 3532 98 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 152 0 0 177 0 0 49 491 509 118 527 549 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1709 0 0 1656 0 0 524 1777 1845 563 1777 1853 Q Serve(g_s), s _ 0.0 1.1 2.8 7.2 7.2 6.9 7.9 7.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 10.7 7.2 7.2 14.1 7.9 7.9 Prop In Lane i 0.26 I 0.47 0.23 I 0.63 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 328 0 0 319 0 0 410 1218 1265 439 1218 1270 V/C Ratio(X) Mb 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00I 0.00 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.27 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 821 0 0 808 0 0 410 1218 1265 439 1218 1270 HCM Platoon Ratio ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.9 0.0 0.0 24.3 = 0.0 6.6 4.1J 7.2 4.2 4.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.2 3.3 1.4 3.6 3.7
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/1n 3.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.9
0.0 0.0 25.8
0.0 0.0 7.2 5.1 5.1 8.7 5.3 5.3
LOS
A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
152
177
24.9 C
C
1049
5.2 A
1194
5.6 A
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
46.1 5.0
22.0 12.7
4.5 13.9
5.0 28.0
6.8 0.9
46.1 5.0
22.0 16.1
3.6 13.9
5.0 28.0
7.9 1.0
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.0
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Existing Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement LL. L..�WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR = SBL
Lane Configurations ' 4t Vi 4,ta. sta. dab
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT) 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No NIL
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 X35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 379 393 41 474 485 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 36.6 14.1 14.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 (.38 '0.38 0.11 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 ' 0.00 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio .00 '1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.72 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.6 15.4 15.4
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
49 676 34
49 676 34
38 809 74 38 53 50 29 21
38 809 74 38 53 50 29 21 29
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
No vo
No
53 735 -37
41 879 80 1 - 58 _im - 54
32 23
2 I 2 - 2
2 2 2 2 2- 2
2 2 2
252 1951 98
373 1866 170 169 237 200 223 163 201
586 3443 173
698 3293 300 374 676 573 521 465 574
0 0 87 0 0
586 1777 1839 698 1777 1816 1623
0 0 1560 0 0
8.0 14.J 14.1
6.1 28.6 28.6 I 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0inna 0.0
20.2 28.6 28.6 7.6 0.0 0.0
4.1 0.0 0.0
10.09 1.00
0.17 I 0.27
0.35 0.37 0.37
252 1007 1042 373 1007 1029 606
0 0 587 0 0
252 1007 1042 373 1007 1029 606
0 0 587 0 0
29.7 14.3
1.1 1.0
35.5 32.7 32.7 27.8 10.0 0.0
0.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o I o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.1 19.0 19.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
26.7 0.0 0.0
0.5 0.0 0.0
0.0 o.o I o.o
9.5 9.8
I
I
35.9 33.9 33.9 28.8 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.0
C B B
D
C
C
C
C
825
1000
153
87 16.4
34.0 28.8
27.2 _
B
C
C
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 68.0
42.0 68.0
9.6 38.6
6.1 30.6
1.0 5.5
0.5 7.3
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh
HCM 7th LOS
26.3 C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1
LLG Engineers
Synchro 12 Report
11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC Existing Conditions
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
#t) it) E i Et)
31 67 14 22 55 39 6 52 10 18 60 25
31 67 14 22 55 39 6 52 10 18 60 25
-
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
34 73 15 24 60 42 7 57 11 20 65 27
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.1
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.1 8.2
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 9% 28% 19% 17%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol
Through Vol 52 67 55 60
RT Vol 10 m 14 39 125
Lane Flow Rate 74 122 126 112
Geometry Grp 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.094 0.152 0.152 0.139
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.556 4.484 4.339 4.473
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 787 801 827 803
Service Time 2.58 2.506 2.361 2.496
HCM Lane V/C Ratio j 0.094 0.152 0.152 0.139
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5
76% 60% 47% 58%
15% 13% 34% 24%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
68 112 116 103
6 31 22 118
■
1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC Existing Conditions
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor_ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
4+ 4) 43 E 1
23 69 11 10 61 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
23 69 11 10 61 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
25 75 12 11 66 26 13 24 3 13 24 50
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 7.8
HCM LOS
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1 1
7.8 7.6
A A
A A
NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left,% 32% 22% 11% 15%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 12 23 1( 12
Through Vol 22 69 61 22
RT Vol 11 milM 46
Lane Flow Rate 40 112 103 87
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.051 0.131 0.121 0.1
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.521 4.216 4.214 4.142
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 796 836 856 869
Service Time 2.529 2.316 2.214 2.149
HCM Lane V/C Ratio * 0.05 0.134 0.12 0.1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh
HCM Lane LOS i A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3
•
59% 67% 64% 28%
8% 11% 25% 57%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
37 103 95 80
■
1 ■
1 1 1
7.8 8 7.8 7.6
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Conditions 4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Weekday PM Peak Hour
t
Movement EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations li 4,t+ 44 r vi + ID "i * r
Traffic Volume (veh/h)=167 512 111 107 574 391 132 735 114 209 6 140 Future Volume(veh/h) 167 512 111 107 574 391 132 735 114 209 625 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh Miru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 IIMIII0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No '
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 182 557 121 116 624 425 143 799 124 227 679 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap,veh/h 148 810 175 141 977 433 170 1025 159 254 1349 731 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2901 628 1781 3554 1575 1781 3081 478 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v),veh/h I 182 340 338 116 624 425 143 461 462 227 679 152 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1753 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1782 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.3 22.4 7.7 18.5 32.2 9.5 28.0 28.0 15.0 17.6 6.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 22.3 22.4 7.7 18.5 32.2 9.5 28.0 28.0 15.0 17.6 6.9 Prop In Lane i 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 148 496 489 141 977 433 170 591 593 254 1349 731 V/C Ratio(X) MI 1.23 0.69 0.69 0.82 0.64 0.98 0.84 0.78 0.78 0.89 0.50 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 496 489 148 977 433 208 591 593 267 1349 731 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.3 49.4 49.4 54.4 38.3 43.2 53.4 36.1 36.1 50.6 28.6 19.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 144.7 3.7 3.8 28.6 1.4 38.2 20.6 9.2 9.2 28.7 1.3 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 17.0 16.4 16.3 8.0 12.7 23.4 8.8 19.4 19.4 13.5 12.2 4.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 203.1 53.0 53.3 83.0 39.7 81.4 74.0 45.3 45.2 79.3 29.9 19.8 LnGrp LOS ' F D D F D F E D D E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
1.00 1.00
I
2 2 2 2 2 2 2`2 2 2 2 I 2
860
84.9 F
1165
59.2 E
1066
49.1 D
1058
39.0 D
Timer - Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.1 44.9 14.5 38.5 16.5 50.5 15.0 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),Is7.0 30.0 9.7 24.4 11.5 19.6 12.0 34.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.9 0.0 2.6 0.1 5.2 0.0 0.0 5 6
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 56.8
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Conditions 5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
t
Movement M. EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations E IN ft+ 1 44+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 40 40 49 28 52 906 77 64 709 34 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 40 40 49 20 28 52 906 77 64 709 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.98 0.99 i 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h „MI6 43 43 -53 22 30 57 985 84 70 771 IMPIr Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 63 90 77 177 62 173 562 2581 220 442 2689 129 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Sat Flow, veh/h 150 817 705 994 570 1581 674 3312 282 527 3451 166 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 102 0 0 75 0 30 57 528 541 70 397 411 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1672 0 0 1564 0 1581 674 1777 1817 527 1777 1840 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 0.0 1.6 2.4 8.4 8.4 4.3 5.7 5.7
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 5.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.6 8.1 8.4 8.4 12.7 5.7 5.7 Prop In Lane i 0.16 1 0.42 0.71 1 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 230 0 0 240 0 173 562 1385 1416 442 1385 1433 V/C Ratio(X) MID 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00g 0.17 0.10 0.38 ME 0.16 0.29 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 668 0 0 622 0 597 562 1385 1416 442 1385 1433 HCM Platoon Ratio a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.9 0.0 0.0 37.3 36.4 4.0 5.1 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.5 3.8 3.9 0.8 2.5 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 39.3 0.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 36.8 4.3 3.9 3.9 5.8 3.3 3.2 LnGm LOS D
0 0 0 0 0 0
No No No
D A A A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
102
105
1126
878
39.3 3.9
3.5 D
D
A
A
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
75.1 14.9
75.1 14.9
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
34.0 7.1
46.0 14.7
34.0 5.7
9.0 0.6 6.6 0.5
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Conditions 6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement �
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 42 24 18 58 48 926 29 55 737 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 17 42 24 18 58 48 926 29 55 737 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h „IM4 18 46 -26 20 63 52 1007 32 60 801 IMI38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 126 44 79 103 41 96 548 2579 82 460 2534 120 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 Sat Flow, veh/h 457 438 792 290 414 965 655 3515 112 543 3454 164 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 98 0 0 109 0 0 52 509 530 60 412 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1687 0 0 1669 0 0 655 1777 1850 543 1777 1841 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.4 6.4 9.2 4.8 4.8 Prop In Lane i 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 249 0 0 241 0 0 548 1303 1357 460 1303 1350 V/C Ratio(X) Mr 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00g 0.00 0.09 0.39 0.39 g 0.13 0.32 0.32 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 807 0 0 813 0 0 548 1303 1357 460 1303 1350 HCM Platoon Ratio ir 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.7 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 3.9 3.0 4.7 2.8 2.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.3 2.4 0.5 1.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.7 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 3.9 3.8 5.3 3.4 3.4 LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
k4\ t
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
i) 0
0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 •
1.00 1.00 1.00
No • No No
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 2 2 r 2
0.5 1.8 6.4 6.4 2.8 4.8 4.8
I
0.47 0.24 I 0.58 1.00
0.06 1.00 0.09
A A A A A A
98 109
1091
899
26.7 27.3
3.9 3.5
C
C
A
A
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
49.0 11.0
49.0 11.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 28.0
5.1 22.0
28.0 5.6
5.8 0.5 4.3 0.6
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.9
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
4-
Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No i
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h W78 _84 71 867 60 26 -48 - 47 65 51 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h 603 3182 394 704 3372 233 287 714 636 536 514 516 Grp Volume(v), veh/h Il 40 378 384 71 457 470 121 0 0 173 0 ' 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 603 1777 1799 704 1777 1828 1636 0 0 1565 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X) .38 '0.38 0.19 0.45 0.45 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 ' 0.00 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio ir
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 1.6 9.5 9.6 3.8 18.6 19.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
1N ft, vi 444
37 624 77 65 798 55 24 44 43 60 47_
37 624 77 65 798 55 24 44 43 60 47 52
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-"M
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No MIvo - No
2 2 2 2 2 2 2` 2 2 2
264 1803 223 376 1911 132 137 250 222 229 180 180
'63"r 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 .35
5.6 14.1 14.1 10.7 27.4 27.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 OM. 0.0
33.1 14.1 14.1 24.8 27.4 27.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0
'0.22 1.00
0.13 0.21
0.39 0.38 0.33
264 1007 1020 376 1007 1036 609 0 0 589 0 0
264 1007 1020 376 1007 1036 609 0 0 589 0 0
1.00 1.00 '1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00
14.3 37.4 32.3 32.3 27.2 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0
1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
29.4 15.4 15.4 38.3 33.4 33.4 28.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0
C B B D C C C
C
802
998
121
173
16.1 33.8
28.0 B
C
C
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 68.0
42.0 68.0
7.8 35.1
10.8 29.4
0.8 5.4
1.1 7.3
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh
HCM 7th LOS
26.3 C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
15 62 17 17 52 42 8 48 9 26 72 82
15 62 17 17 52 42 8 48 9 26 72 82
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 67 18 18 57 46 9 52 10 28 78 89
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.3
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.1 8.6
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 16% 15% 14%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 8 15 17 26
Through Vol 48 62 52 72
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 71 102 121 196
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X)
Departure Headway (Hd)
Convergence, Y/N
Cap
Service Time
HCM Lane V/C Ratio jib 0.091 0.131 0.15 0.234
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.9
74% 66% 47% 40%
14% 18% 38% 46%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
65 94 111 180
r
9 17 42 82
1 1 1 1
0.09 0.13 0.149 0.233
4.605 4.594 4.456 4.285
Yes Yes Yes Yes
778 780 805 839
2.636 2.624 2.484 2.309
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor -Z 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
( # 4+ 4+ 4)
16 99 17 4 61 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
16 99 17 4 61 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
108 18 4 66 27 10 21 3 25 28 49
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 7.8
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
7.8 7.9
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 29% 12% 4% 24%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 9 J 16 4 23
Through Vol 19 99 61 26
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 34 143 98 102
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.171 0.115 0.121
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.582 4.303 4.233 4.268
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 783 839 849 842
Service Time 2.599 2.303 2.249 2.284
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ji 0.043 0.17 0.115 0.121
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.8 8.2 7.8 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4
61% 1 75% 68% 28%
10% 13% 28% 48%
Stop I Stop Stop Stop
31 132 90 94
T
17 25 45
T
1 1 1
•
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations ' } 44 r + ID ipi 4 r
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 524 I 153 127 532 311 151 782 121 292 837 216 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 524 153 127 532 311 151 782 121 292 837 216 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 0.99 1.00 i 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach •
W No No No I No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h _ 85 570 166 138 578 338 164 850 132 317 1910 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap,veh/h 108 675 196 148 966 428 191 1081 168 267 1399 718 Arrive On Green iw2 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2712 787 1781 3554 1575 1781 3081 478 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 85 373 363 138 578 338 164 490 492 317 910 235 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1722 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1782 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 24.8 25.0 9.2 17.0 23.9 10.9 29.7 29.7 18.0 25.0 11.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 24.8 25.0 9.2 17.0 23.9 10.9 29.7 29.7 18.0 25.0 11.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 443 429 148 966 428 191 624 625 267 1399 718 V/C Ratio(X) Mill 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.93 0.60 0.79 0.86 0.79 0.79 1.19 0.65 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 148 489 474 148 977 433 208 624 625 267 1399 718 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.0 52.7 52.8 54.7 38.01 40.5 52.7 I34.9 34.9 51.0 29.6 21.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 11.0 11.7 53.2 1.0 9.4 24.9 8.8 8.7 115.1 2.4 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 5.6 18.9 18.6 10.4 11.8 15.4 10.0 20.1 20.1 25.0 16.3 7.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 74.2 63.8 64.5 107.8 39.0 50.0 77.6 43.7 43.6 166.1 32.0 22.2 LnGrp LOS E E E F D D E D D F CC
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
0 0,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
I
2 2
821
65.2 E
1054
51.5 D
1146
48.5 D
1462
59.5 E
Timer - Assigned Phs 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 47.1 15.0 34.9 17.9 52.3 12.3 37.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 _0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),2D.0 31.7 r 11.2 27.0 12.9 27.0 7.7 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 6.4 0.0 2.8 HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 55.9
HCM 7th LOS E
dotes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations fl *T+ "i +Ti
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 24 1 57 70 261 52 63 938 85 70 1046 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 24 57 70 26 52 63 938 85 70 1046 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 26 62-76 28 57 68 1020 92 76 1137 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 74 63 101 194 61 231 374 2447 221 398 2593 98 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Sat Flow, veh/h 169 433 691 854 420 1582 475 3294 297 506 3491 132 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 116 0 0 104 0 57 68 550 562 76 579 601 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1293 0 0 1274 0 1582 475 1777 1815 506 1777 1846 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.7 10.4 10.4 5.9 11.2 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 8.6 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 2.9 16.9 10.4 10.4 16.3 11.2 11.2 Prop In Lane i 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 239 0 0 255 0 231 374 1320 1348 398 1320 1371 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00g 0.25 0.18 0.42 0.42 1 0.19 0.44 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 597 0 0 583 0 598 374 1320 1348 398 1320 1371 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.7 0.0 0.0 35.7 34.0 7.6 4.3 4.3J 7.4 4.4 4.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 5.4 5.5 1.1 5.4 5.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.2 0.0
4 40
0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 • 0.99 1.00
0.9 No ' No No
2 2 2= 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0.53 0.73 r 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.07
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LOS
0.0 36.7
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
116
D
0.0 34.6
161
D
8.7 5.3
5.3 8.0
5.1 5.1
A A A A A
1180
5.5 A
1256
5.3 A
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
71.8 18.2
71.8 18.2
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
34.0 46.0
10.6 18.3
34.0 9.2
9.4 0.6 10.2 0.8
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.5
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations E) 4+ 'N ft+ vi ft,
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 40 66 41 24 110 45 898 38 120 979 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 40 66 41 24 110 45 898 38 120 979 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No -
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 43 72 -45 26 120 49 976 41 130 1064 1.19 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 122 97 126 118 53 163 396 2347 99 424 2386 65 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 299 612 800 278 334 1033 516 3475 146 554 3534 96 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 154 0 0 191 0 0 49 499 518 130 535 558 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1710 0 0 1645 0 0 516 1777 1844 554 1777 1853 Q Serve(g_s), s _ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.9 7.6 7.6 8.3 8.4 8.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 11.3 7.6 7.6 15.9 8.4 8.4 Prop In Lane IM. 0.25 1 0.47 0.24 1 0.63 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 345 0 0 334 0 0 396 1200 1245 424 1200 1251 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00I 0.00 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.31 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 822 0 0 806 0 0 396 1200 1245 424 1200 1251 HCM Platoon Ratio a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.3 0.0 0.0 23.9 = 0.0 7.2 4.4J 8.0 4.5 4.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.5 3.6 1.7 3.9 4.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.2 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 7.8 5.5 5.4 9.9 5.7 5.7
A A A A A
154 1066 1223
24.2 5.6 6.1
C A A
0 0 0 0 0J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2
LnGm LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
191
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
45.5 14.5
45.5 14.5
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
22.0 13.3
4.4 28.0
6.8 0.9
22.0 17.9
2.7 28.0
8.4 1.1
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.4
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR = SBL
Lane Configurations ' 4t vi 444 sta.
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width Adj.
Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor
Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green
Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h F
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X)
Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio ir
Upstream Filter(I)
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
49 705 34 38 838 75 38 57 51 29
49 705 34 38 838 75 38 57 51 29 24 29
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No -
No
No
1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 53 766 -37
41 911 82 =41 =62 - 55
32 26 32
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 I 2 - 2
2 2 2 '2 - 2 - 2
2 2
2 241 1955 94 360 1868 168 164 245 198 217 177 195
0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 = x.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 567
53 567
8.4 14.8 114.8 6.3 29.7 29.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0ME. 0.0
3451
394
1777
167
409
1840
678 3297 297 360 701 567 503 507 557
41 491 502 158 0 0 90 0 0
678 1777 1817 1628 0 0 1567 0 0
38.1 14.8 14.8 21.2 29.7 29.7 7.9 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0
1.00 L 10.09 1.00 0.16 0.26 0.35 0.36 JIMr 0.36
241 1007 1043 360 1007 1030 607
0.22 =.39 '0.39 0.11 0.49 0.49 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 ' 0.00 241 1007 1043 360 1007 1030 607
1.00 1.00 '1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
30.7 14.5 '14.5 36.2 33.2 33.2 27.4.. 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 589
0 0
0 0 589
0 0
2.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.= 0.0
2.3 9.9 10.2 2.1 19.6 20.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o - o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
•
32.7 15.6 15.6 36.7 34.4 34.4 28.9 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 C B B
D
C
C
C
C
856
1034
158
90 16.7
34.5 28.9
27.3 -
B
C
C
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 9.9
1.0 68.0
40.1 5.8
42.0 6.2
0.5 68.0
31.7 7.6
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh
HCM 7th LOS
26.6 C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1
LLG Engineers
Synchro 12 Report
11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.2
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
4+
31 68 14 22 56 42 6 53 10 21 61 25
31 68 14 22 56 42 6 53 10 21 61 25
-
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
34 74 15 24 61 46 7 58 11 23 66 27
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 8.2
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.1 8.3
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 9% 27% 18% 20%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 6 31 22 121
Through Vol 53 68 56 61
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 75 123 130 116
Geometry Grp 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.095 0.154 0.157 0.145
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.575 4.504 4.346 4.496
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 784 797 827 798
Service Time 2.601 2.525 2.367 2.52
HCM Lane V/C Ratio j 0.096 0.154 0.157 0.145
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.3 8.2 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5
77% 60% 47% 57%
14% 12% 35% 23%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
69 113 120 107
I
14 42 25
■
1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor_ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
23 73 11 10 65 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
23 73 11 10 65 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
25 79 12 11 71 26 13 24 3 13 24 50
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8 7.8
HCM LOS
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1 1
7.8 7.6
A A
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 32% 21% 10% 15%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol
Through Vol 22 73 65 22
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 40 116 108 87
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.051 0.14 0.126 0.101
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.54 4.321 4.226 4.161
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap i 791 834 853 863
Service Time 2.557 2.324 2.229 2.176
HCM Lane V/C Il= 0.051 0.139 0.127 0.101
HCM Control Delay, s/veh
HCM Lane LOS i A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3
•
59% 68% 66% 28%
8% 10% 24% 57%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
37 107 99 80
12 23 10 r12
T 11
24 I46
■
1 .1
1 1
7.8 8 7.8 7.6
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili ft+ li 4+ r iiTi 'Pi 44 rir
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 519 125 108 582 399 146 757 115 214 645 146 Future Volume (veh/h) 175 519 125 108 582 399 146 757 115 214 645 146 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No I
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 190 564 136 117 633 434 159 823 125 233 701 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap,veh/h 148 790 190 142 977 433 186 1018 155 259 1317 717 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2837 682 1781 3554 1575 1781 3091 469 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v),veh/h I 190 352 348 117 633 434 159 473 475 233 701 159 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1742 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1784 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.1 23.3 7.8 18.9 33.0 10.5 29.2 29.2 15.4 18.6 7.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 23.1 23.3 7.8 18.9 33.0 10.5 29.2 29.2 15.4 18.6 7.3 Prop In Lane i 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 148 495 485 142 977 433 186 585 588 259 1317 717 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.71 0.72 0.82 0.65 1.00 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.53 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 148 495 485 148 977 433 208 585 588 267 1317 717 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.3 49.8 49.9 54.4 38.4 43.5 52.8 36.8 36.8 50.4 29.6 19.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 164.9 4.4 4.6 28.9 1.5 43.8 24.2 10.6 10.6 29.8 1.5 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 18.3 17.0 16.8 8.1 12.9 24.6 9.8 20.2 20.3 13.9 12.8 5.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 223.3 54.2 54.5 83.3 39.9 87.3 77.0 47.4 47.3 80.2 31.2 20.6 LnGrp LOS F D D F D F E D D F CC
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh?
Approach LOS
1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
890
90.4 F
1184
61.6 E
1107
51.6 D
1093
40.1 D
Timer - Assigned Phs M-1 2 3 ' 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 44.5 14.6 38.4 17.5 49.5 15.0 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),Is7.4 31.2 r 9.8 25.3 12.5 20.6 12.0 35.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.0 2.5 0.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 59.5
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +T3 l 44)
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 40 43 49 di 28 56 943 78 65 743 34 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 40 43 49 20 28 56 943 78 65 743 34 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 • 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h „IM6 43 47 -53 22 30 61 1025 85 71 808 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 + 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
„II
Cap, veh/h 62 88 83 178 63 177 541 2579 214 423 2687 123 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 1 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Sat Flow, veh/h 143 785 739 980 560 1581 651 3320 275 507 3459 158 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 106 0 0 75 0 30 61 548 562 71 415 430 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1668 0 0 1540 0 1581 651 1777 1819 507 1777 1841 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 O 0.0 1.5 2.7 9.0 9.0 4.7 6.1 6.
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 5.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.5 8.8 9.0 9.0 13.7 6.1 6.1 Prop In Lane i 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 233 0 0 241 0 177 541 1380 1413 423 1380 1430 V/C Ratio(X) il=ni 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00g 0.17 0.11 0.40 0.40 g 0.17 0.30 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 666 0 0 619 0 597 541 1380 1413 423 1380 1430 HCM Platoon Ratio a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.8 0.0 0.0 37.1 36.2 4.2 3.2 5.5 2.9 12.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 4.1 4.2 0.9 2.7 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 39.2 0.0 0.0 37.8 0.0 36.6 4.6 4.1 4.1 6.2 3.4 3.4 LnGm LOS D D A A A A A A
0 0 0 0 0 0
No • No No Mk
I
0.44 0.71 1 1.00 1.00
0.15 1.00 0.09
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
106 105
1171 916
39.2 37.5
4.1 3.6
D D
A A
Timer - Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 34.0 46.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 7.3 15.7 5.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
4 6
74.9 15.1 74.9 15.1
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
9.6 0.6 6.9 0.5
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.1
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Future Cumulative Without Project Conditions 6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement �
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 35 21 83 48 947 35 81 749 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 31 20 42 35 21 83 48 947 35 81 749 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 IIIMII1.00 1.00 •
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h „IM4 22 46 -38 23 90 52 I029 38 88 814 IMI38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 132 71 101 114 48 128 515 2451 91 425 2425 113 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 395 536 765 294 363 969 647 3495 129 529 3457 161 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 102 0 0 151 0 0 52 523 544 88 418 434 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1695 0 0 1626 0 0 647 1777 1847 529 1777 1841 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 O 2.0 2.0 7.5 7.5 5.1 5.5 5.5
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 3.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 7.6 7.5 7.5 12.5 5.5 5.5 Prop In Lane i 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304 0 0 290 0 0 515 1246 1296 425 1246 1292 V/C Ratio(X) MID 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00g 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.21 0.34 0.34 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 811 0 0 808 0 0 515 1246 1296 425 1246 1292 HCM Platoon Ratio a 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 0.0 5.0 3.8 3.8 6.4 3.5 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.2 3.3 1.0 2.3 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.7 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 5.4 4.8 4.8 7.5 4.2 4.2 LnGrp LOS -
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.7
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
No • No No
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
I
0.45 0.25 I 0.60 1.00
0.07 1.00 0.09
C A A A A A A
102 151
1119 940
4.8 4.5
C C
A A
Timer - Assiened Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 5.2 14.5 7.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.1 12.9 47.1 12.9
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
22.0 28.0
22.0 28.0
5.7 0.5
3.5 0.8
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Movement WBR NBL NBT NBR 1 SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 691 -84 71 874 60 33 -61 - 47 72 58 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 40 385 390 71 460 474 141 0 0 187 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln
Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X) .38 0.38 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 ' 0.00 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio .00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 1.6 9.7 9.8 3.8 18.7 19.1 5.5 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
1N 44t) f
37 636 77 65 804 55 30 56 43 66
53�
37 636 77 65 804 55 30 56 43 66 53 52
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-"M
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
No EL No
vo - No
2 2 2 2 2 2 2` 2 2 2 2
262 1808 220 371 1912 131 149 271 192 234 188 167
599 3190 387 696 3374 232 321 775 548 551 538 477
599 1777 1801 696 1777 1829 1643 0 0 1567 0 0
5.7 14.4 14.4 10.8 27.6 27.6 k 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0inna 0.0
33.3 14.4 14.4 25.2 27.6 27.6 6.8 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0
1.00 0.22 1.00 0.13 0.33 0.39 10.30
262 1007 1020 371 1007 1036 612 0 0 590 0 0
262 1007 1020 371 1007 1036 612 0 0 590 0 0
4.4 14.4 37.7 32.4 32.4 27.6 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0
1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
29.6 15.5 15.5 38.6 33.5 33.5 28.4 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0
C B B D C C C
C
815
1005
141
187
16.2 33.9
28.4 B
C
C
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 8.8
0.9 68.0
35.3 5.5
42.0 11.5
1.2 68.0
29.6 7.4
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh
HCM 7th LOS
26.4 C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1
LLG Engineers
Synchro 12 Report
11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
15 62 17 17 52 61 8 48 9 32 72 82
15 62 17 17 52 61 8 48 9 32 72 82
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
16 67 18 18 57 66 9 52 10 35 78 89
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
SB
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 8.4
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.2 8.8
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 12% 16% 13% 17%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 8 15 17 32
Through Vol 48 62 52 72
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 71 102 141 202
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.092 0.132 0.174 0.244
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.664 4.641 4.421 4.347
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 767 771 811 825
Service Time 2.7 2.674 2.452 2.377
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ji 0.093 0.132 0.174 0.245
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q
74% 66% 40% 39%
14% 18% 47% 44%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
65 94 130 186
I
9 17 61 82
1 1 1 1
0.3 0.5 0.6 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
16 105 17 4 67 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
16 105 17 4 67 25 9 19 3 23 26 45
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
17 114 18 4 73 27 10 21 3 25 28 49
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.3 7.9
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
7.8 7.9
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 29% 12% 4% 24%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol 9 J 16 4 23
Through Vol 19 105 67 26
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 34 150 104 102
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.043 0.179 0.123 0.122
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.614 4.302 4.254 4.299
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 778 837 845 836
Service Time 2.631 2.315 2.268 2.314
HCM Lane V/C Ratio j 0.044 0.179 0.123 0.122
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.8 8.3 7.9 7.9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4
61% 1 76% 70% 28%
10% 12% 26% 48%
Stop I Stop Stop Stop
31 138 96 94
T
17 25 45
T
1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
t l t
Movement BR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations III ft# li 44 r li ft+ iii 4 r
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 524 I 171 139 532 311 157 813 133 292 866 216 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 524 171 139 532 311 157 813 133 292 866 216 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach • No No No I No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h _ 85 570 186 151 578 338 171 884 145 317 1941 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %'2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 2
Cap,veh/h 108 666 217 148 981 435 198 1059 174 267 1371 705 Arrive On Green E2 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2630 856 1781 3554 1575 1781 3054 501 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 85 385 371 151 578 338 171 514 515 317 941 235 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1709 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1778 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 25.6 25.7 10.0 16.9 23.7 11.3 31.9 31.9 18.0 26.5 11.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 25.6 25.7 10.0 16.9 23.7 11.3 31.9 31.9 18.0 26.5 11.6 Prop In Lane - 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 450 433 148 981 435 198 616 616 267 1371 705 V/C Ratio(X) Mill 0.79 0.85 0.86 1.02 0.59 0.78 0.87 W3 0.83 1.19 0.69 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 489 470 148 981 435 208 616 616 267 1371 705 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.0 52.8 52.9 55.0 37.6 40.0 52.5 36.0 36.0 51.0 30.8 21.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 12.2 13.0 78.5 0.9 8.7 25.8 11.2 11.2 115.1 2.8 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 5.6 19.6 19.1 12.2 11.7 15.2 10.4 21.6 21.6 25.0 17.3 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 74.2 65.0 65.9 133.5 38.5 48.7 78.2 47.2 47.2 166.1 33.6 22.9 LnGrp LOS E E E F D D E D D F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
0 0,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
841
66.3 E
1067
55.2 E
1200
51.6 D
1493
60.1 E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 46.6 15.0 35.4 18.3 51.3 12.3 38.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),20.0 33.9 12.0 27.7 13.3 28.5 7.7 25.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.9 5 6
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 57.9
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
t l t
Movement — EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 PI 'I +T3 "i ft+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 132 51 57 70 52 52 63 938 85 70 1136 79 Future Volume (veh/h) 132 51 57 70 52 52 63 938 85 70 1136 79 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 i 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 143 55 62 - 76 57 57 68 1020 92 76 1235 86 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 217 84 75 255 175 430 244 2033 183 306 2079 145 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Sat Flow, veh/h 571 309 276 708 645 1583 415 3294 297 507 3369 234 Grp Volume(v), veh/h j 260 0 0 133 0 57 68 550 562 76 650 671 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1156 0 0 1353 0 1583 415 1777 1814 507 1777 1826 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 20.3 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 2.4 30.7 15.5 15.5 24.3 19.9 20.0 Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 0 0 431 0 430 244 1096 1119 306 1096 1127 V/C Ratio(X) MI 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.001 0.13 0.28 0.50 0.50 g 0.25 0.59 0.59 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h 529 0 0 587 0 598 244 1096 1119 306 1096 1127 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.9 0.0 0.0 26.1 24.8 19.7 9.6 16.3 10.4 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 9.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.7 2.1 9.5 9.7 1.9 10.4 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 24.9 22.5 11.2 11.2 17.4 11.8 11.8 LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh II 35.2
Approach LOS
0.99 1.00 0.99
No No No
2 2 2` 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 10.7 15.5 15.5 8.8 19.9 20.0
0.55 0.24 0.57 1.00 1.00
0.16 1.00 0.13
C B B B B B
260
190
1180
1397
26.0 11.8
12.1 D
C
B
B
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
60.5 29.5
60.5 29.5
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
34.0 22.3
46.0 26.3
34.0 8.8
6.7 1.2 9.9 1.0
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.9
HCM 7th LOS
B
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
t l t
Movement i EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations [) 'Pi f 'i +Ti
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 40 93 41 24 110 84 937 38 120 1032 27 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 40 93 41 24 110 84 937 38 120 1032 27 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 9 43 101-45 26 120 91 1018 _41 130 1122 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap,veh/h 112 79 146 119 52 163 379 2363 95 411 2402 62 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.68 .8 0.68 0.68 0.68 Sat Flow, veh/h 253 511 941 288 336 1055 488 3482 140 533 3539 91 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 183 0 0 191 0 0 91 519 540 130 563 588 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1704 0 0 1680 0 0 488 1777 1845 533 1777 1854 Q Serve(g_s), s _ 0.0 0.4 6.5 8.0 8.0 8.8 8.9 9.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 15.4 8.0 8.0 16.8 8.9 9.0 Prop In Lane i 0.21 1 0.55 10.24 1 0.63 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 0 0 334 0 0 379 1206 1252 411 1206 1258 V/C Ratio(X) Mb 0.54 0.00 0.00 MAMIE 0.00 0.24 0.43 0.43 i 0.32 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 820 0 0 808 0 0 379 1206 1252 411 1206 1258 HCM Platoon Ratio I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 0.0 8.2 4.4J 8.2 4.5 4.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/1n 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.6 3.8 1.8 4.1 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.3 0.0 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 9.7 5.5 5.5 10.2 5.8 5.8 LnGm LOS A A B A A
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 2 2 -2
Approach Vol, veh/h 183
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS C
191 1150 1281
25.6 - 5.8 6.3
A A
C
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
45.7 14.3
45.7 14.3
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
22.0 17.4
2.9 28.0
7.8 1.1
22.0 18.8
2.3 28.0
8.2 1.1
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.6
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC
7: Project Driveway & Ramona Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
w
Int Delay, s/veh 8.4
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr J 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized
Storage Length - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
T4 41
1 13
1 13 64 1 40 133
64 1 40 133
- None - None - None
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 14 70 1 43 145
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 15 0 148 8
Majorl Major2 Minorl
Stage 1
Stage 2 - - - 140
8 Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
- 1603 - 844 1074
Stage 1 - - - - 1015
Stage 2 - - 887
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 807
- 1603 - 807 1074
Stagel - - 1015
Stage 2 - - 848
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 7.24 9.44
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
998 - - 1602 -
0.188 - - 0.043
7.3 0
A - A A
0.7 - - 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC
8: Bellflower Boulevard & Northerly Project Driveway
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
'
Int Delay, s/veh
0.7 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0`11
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, # 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
++ 444
10 80 26
0 11 0 10 80 26
0 0 0
■
- None - None
0 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 12 0 11 87 28
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All - 58
Minor2 Majorl Major2
0 - 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
0 996 0
Stage 1
Stage 2 0
0 - 0
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 996
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.66 0 0
HCM LOS A
rrnor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 996
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.012
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Bellflower Boulevard & Middle Project Driveway
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations ' 4i* 4
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h 0 21 39 10 50 41
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized
Storage Length 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow 0 23 42 11 54 45
0. 21 39 10 50 41
0 0 0 0 0
ne - None - None
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Mino Majorl Major2
49 99 0 - 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy - 6.94 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 1008 1492
Stage 1 0
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1008 1492
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.65
HCM LOS A
5.96 0
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1492 - 1008
0.028 - 0.023
A - A
0.1 - 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC
10: Bellflower Boulevard & Southerly Project Driveway
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, # 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
14 444
Or 21 49 48 23
0 21 0 49 48 23
■
- None - None
0 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 23 0 53 52 25
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All - 39
Minor2 Majorl Major2
0 - 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
0 1025 0
Stage 1
Stage 2 0
0 0
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1025
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.59 0 0
HCM LOS A
rrnor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 1025
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.022
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - 8.6
HCM Lane LOS - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC
11: Cedar Street & Project Driveway
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Intersection
w
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations 1
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized
Storage Length - 0
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 • 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
13 1 1 39 27 13
13 1 1 39 27 13
- None - None - None
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
14 1 42 29 14
Major/Minor Majo Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 43 0 - 0 52 22
Stage 1
Stage 2 - 29
22 Critical Hdwy - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
957 1055
Stage 1 - - 1000
Stage 2 - - 993
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1565 - - - 948 1055
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 948
Stage 1 - 991
Stage 2 - - - 993
J
Approach
HCM Control Delay, s/v 6.8
HCM LOS A
EB
WB SB
0 8.84
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1564 - - - 981
0.009 - - - 0.044
I.3
0 - 8.8
A A - A
0 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Ardmore Avenue & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
t
Movement WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR I SBL
Lane Configurations ' 4t Vi 4
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-Bike Adj(ApbT)
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 .0.57 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 564 3453 164 670 3299 295 380 742 506 518 550 481 Grp Volume(v), veh/h � 53 400 415 41 494 505 177 0 0 103 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 564 1777 1841 670 1777 1817 1628 0 0 1549 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s
Cycle Q Clear(g c), s
Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 x.40 '0.40 0.12 0.49 0.49 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 ' 0.00 Avail Cap(c a), veh/h
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 '1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh
%ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 2.3 10.1 10.4 2.1 19.7 20.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh
LnGrp LOS
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
49 716 34 38 844 75 44
51 35 30 _
49 716 34 38 844 75 44 68 51 35 30 29
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00
No - No
No
53 778 -37 41 917 82 48 w 55 38 33
2 2- 2 2 2 2 2 2- 2 2 2 2
239 1957 93 355 1869 167 171 260 177 222 192 168
8.5 15.1 A 15.1 6.4 29.9 29.9 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0MER 0.0
38.3 15.1 15.1 21.5 29.9 29.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
1.00 10.09 1.00 0.16 0.27 0.31 0.37 0.31
239 1007 1043 355 1007 1030 608 0 0 583 0 0
239 1007 1043 355 1007 1030 608 0 0 583 0 0
30.8 14.5 '14.5 36.5 33.3 33.3 28.2 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0
2.1 1.2 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
o.o I o.o I o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o
32.9 15.7 15.7 37.0 34.5 34.5 29.4 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0
C B B D C C C C
868 1040
177 103
16.8 34.6
29.4 27.6 _
B C
C C
Timer - Assigned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.0 73.0
47.0 73.0
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
42.0 68.0
11.0 40.3
1.1 5.9
42.0 68.0
7.0 31.9
0.6 7.7
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.8
HCM 7th LOS C
dotes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
2: Ardmore Avenue & Ramona Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
V
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
# # 4+ E i 41
31 68 14 22 56 59 6 53 10 27 61 25
31 68 14 22 56 59 6 53 10 27 61 25
-
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
34 74 15 24 61 64 7 58 11 29 66 27
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.4 8.3
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
8.1 8.4
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 9% 27% 16% 24%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control -
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol
Through Vol 53 68 56 61
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 75 123 149 123
Geometry Grp 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.096 0.155 0.178 0.155
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.624 4.541 4.311 4.552
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap f 775 790 832 789
Service Time 2.653 2.567 2.336 2.579
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ji 0.097 0.156 0.179 0.156
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 8.4 8.3 8.4
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5
77% 60% 41% 54%
14% 12% 43% 22%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
69 113 137 113
6 31 22 1 27
I
14 59 25
■
1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th AWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
3: Ardmore Avenue & Cedar Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Peak Hour Factor_ 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
Number of Lanes
23 79 11 10 71 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
23 79 11 10 71 24 12 22 3 12 22 46
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
25 86 12 11 77 26 13 24 3 13 24 50
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Opposing Approach WB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.1 7.9
HCM LOS A
EB
SB NB
1 1
EB WB
1 1 1
WB EB
1 1
7.8 7.7
A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Er
Vol Left, % 32% 20% 10% 15%
Vol Thru, %
Vol Right, %
Sign Control
Traffic Vol by Lane
LT Vol
Through Vol 22 79 71 22
RT Vol
Lane Flow Rate 40 123 114 87
Geometry Grp
Degree of Util (X) 0.051 0.148 0.134 0.101
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.572 4.329 4.24 4.191
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap f 785 833 850 857
Service Time 2.588 2.332 2.244 2.206
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.148 0.134 0.102
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 7.8 8.1 7.9 7.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3
59% 70% 68% 28%
8% 10% 23% 57%
Stop Stop Stop Stop
37 113 105 80
12 23 10 F12
I
11 24 146
1 1 1 1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Bellflower Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations f, 44 r ft 44
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 519 142 119 582 399 152 786 126 214 673 146 Future Volume (veh/h) 175 519 142 119 582 399 152 786 126 214 673 146 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No I
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 190 564 154 129 633 434 165 854 137 233 732 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap,veh/h 148 758 206 148 977 433 192 1010 162 259 1305 712 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2756 750 1781 3554 1575 1781 3065 492 1781 3554 1579 Grp Volume(v),veh/h I 190 363 355 129 633 434 165 495 496 233 732 159 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1730 1781 1777 1575 1781 1777 1780 1781 1777 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.9 24.0 8.6 18.9 33.0 10.9 31.1 31.1 15.4 19.7 7.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 23.9 24.0 8.6 18.9 33.0 10.9 31.1 31.1 15.4 19.7 7.4 Prop In Lane i 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 j 0.28 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 148 489 476 148 977 433 192 585 586 259 1305 712 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.87 0.65 1.00 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.56 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 148 489 476 148 977 433 208 585 586 267 1305 712 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 ' 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.3 50.4 50.5 54.4 38.4 43.5 52.6 37.4 37.4 50.4 30.2 20.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 164.9 5.6 5.9 38.6 1.5 43.8 24.7 12.6 12.5 29.8 1.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 18.3 17.6 17.3 9.2 12.9 24.6 10.0 21.4 21.5 13.9 13.4 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 223.3 56.0 56.4 93.0 39.9 87.3 77.3 50.0 49.9 80.2 32.0 20.9 LnGrp LOS F E E F D F E D D F CC
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh?
Approach LOS
1.00 1.00 1.00
908
91.1 F
1196
62.8 E
1156
53.9 D
1124
40.4 D
Timer - Assigned Phs =1 2 3 - 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 44.5 15.0 38.0 17.9 49.1 15.0 38.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), 48.0 39.0 10.0 33.0 14.0 43.0 10.0 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1),1s7.4 33.1 10.6 26.0 12.9 21.7 12.0 35.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 60.6
HCM 7th LOS E
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Future Cumulative With Project Conditions 5: Bellflower Boulevard & Ramona Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
t l t
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
Future Volume (veh/h)
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach • No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 118 70 47 - 53 48 30 61 1025 85 71 898 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %—glIMI 2
Cap, veh/h 192 107 60 208 171 365 387 2185 181 337 2184 182 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 SatFlow,veh/h 571 463 259 638 741 1583 578 3320 275 508 3318 277 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 235 0 0 101 0 30 61 548 562 71 481 492 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1293 0 0 1379 0 1583 578 1777 1818 508 1777 1818 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.0 13.7 13.7 7.2 11.4 11.4 Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 16.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.3 16.4 13.7 13.7 21.0 11.4 11.4 Prop In Lane
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 358 0 0 379 0 365 387 1170 1197 337 1170 1197 V/C Ratio(X) MI 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00g 0.08 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.21 0.41 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 579 0 0 600 0 598 387 1170 1197 337 1170 1197 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.8 0.0 0.0 28.4 27.2 11.0 7.6 7.6 12.8 7.2 7.
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 8.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.9 1.2 8.3 8.5 1.6 6.7 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.8 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 27.2 11.9 9.0 8.9 13.9 8.0 8.0 LnGrn LOS D B A A B A A
109 64
4 r ft. +ID
43 49 44 28 56 943 78 65 826 69
43 49 44 28 56 943 78 65 826 69
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.99 1.00 0.99
No No No
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 -2
0.50 0.20 0.52 r 1.00 1.00
0.15 1.00 0.15
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.8
Approach LOS
235 131
1171 1044
9.1 8.4
D C
A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 34.0 46.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.4 18.3 23.0 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
64.2 25.8 64.2 25.8
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
9.1 1.3
7.5 0.7
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Bellflower Boulevard & Cedar Street
Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
Weekday PM Peak Hour
t l t
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations # 4p " +T+
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 35 21 83 83 982 35 81 796 35
Future Volume (veh/h) 31 20 66 35 21 83 83 982 35 81 796 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh
Lane Width 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 Ped-BikeAdj(A pbT) 1.00 1.00 IIIMII1.00 1.00 •
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h „IM4 22 72 -38 23 90 90 I067 38 88 865 IMI38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %
Cap, veh/h 117 55 123 114 48 128 493 2462 88 413 2439 107 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 317 422 950 303 366 988 617 3500 125 510 3467 152 Grp Volume(v), veh/h I 128 0 0 151 0 0 90 542 563 88 443 460 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1690 0 0 1657 0 0 617 1777 1848 510 1777 1843 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.0 7.8 7.8 5.3 5.9 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g c), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 7.8 7.8 13.1 5.9 5.9 Prop In Lane i 0.27 I 0.56 0.25 I 0.60 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 0 290 0 0 493 1250 1300 413 1250 1296 V/C Ratio(X) MID 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00g 0.00 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 810 0 0 808 0 0 493 1250 1300 413 1250 1296 HCM Platoon Ratio ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.9 0.0 5.5 3.8 3.8 6.6 3.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 3.2 3.3 1.0 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 4.9 4.8 7.8 4.3 4.3 LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
0 0 0I :) 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.00 1.00 1.00
No I No No ,
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2
A A A A A A
128
25.5 C
151
C
1195
5.0 A
991
4.6 A
Time
Ass i ned Phs
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
47.2 12.8
47.2 12.8
5.0 5.0
5.0 5.0
28.0 6.1
22.0 15.1
28.0 7.0
5.4 0.7 3.5 0.9
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.2
HCM 7th LOS A
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers
11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
7: Project Driveway & Ramona Street
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
w
Int Delay, s/veh 8.1
EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr J 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized
Storage Length - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
3 12 59 3 35 118
3 12 59 3 35 118
- None - None - None
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
3 13 64 3 38 128
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 16 0 141 10
Majorl Major2 Minorl
Stage 1 - - - - 10
Stage 2 - - - 132
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.42
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
4.12 - 6.42 6.22
- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
- 1601 - 852 1072
Stage 1 - - 1013
Stage 2 - - 895
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 817
- 1601 - 817 1072
Stagel - - 1013
Stage 2 - - 859
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 6.99 9.31
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1000 - - 1598 -
0.166 - - 0.04
A - A A
0.6 - - 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
8: Bellflower Boulevard & Northerly Project Driveway
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
'
Int Delay, s/veh
0.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, # 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
0 9 0 30 89 24
0 9 0 30 89 24
- None - None - None
0 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 10 0 33 97 26
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All - 61
Minor2 Majorl Major2
0 - 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy - 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
0 991 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
0 0
0 0
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 991
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.67 0 0
HCM LOS A
rrnor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 991
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.01
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
9: Bellflower Boulevard & Middle Project Driveway
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
2.3 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 19 35 30 61 38
Future Vol, veh/h 0 19 35 30 61 38
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized
Storage Length 0 50
Veh in Median Storage, # 0
Grade, % 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow 0 21 38 33 66 41
r 44 4t4
None - None - None
I
0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Minor2 Majorl Major2
54 108 0 - 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy - 6.94 4.14
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy - 3.32 2.22
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 0 1002 1481
Stage 1 0
Stage 2 0
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver - 1002 1481
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.67 4.04 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 - 8.7
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1481 - 1002
0.026 - 0.021
A - A
0.1 - 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
10: Bellflower Boulevard & Southerly Project Driveway
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
1 EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
++ 444
0 19
0 19 0 65 58 21
0 65 58 21
■
Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
- None - None
9 "^ 92
92 92
2 2 2 2 2 2
M PIM 71
63 23
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Mm^ Majorl
Majorl
43 - 0
0 Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
- 6.94
- 3.32
0 1018 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
0 - 0
0 0
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
- 1018
Stage 1
Stage 2
Approach
HCM Control Delay, s/v 8.61
HCM LOS
EB
NB
0 SB
0 A
rrnor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
- 1018
0.02 8.6
A
0.1 Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
HCM 7th TWSC Future Cumulative With Project Conditions
11: Cedar Street & Project Driveway
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Intersection
w
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized
Storage Length - 0
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
t4
12 3 3 35 24 12
12 3 3 35 24 12
■
- None - None - None
0 0 0
2 2 2 2 2 2
13 3 3 38 26 13
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All 41 0 - 0 52 22
Majorl Major2 Minor2
Stage 1 - - - - 22
Stage 2 - - - 29
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 5.42
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
F.12 - - 6.42 6.22
957 1055
Stage 1 - - 1000
Stage 2 - - 993
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1568 - - - 949 1055
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 949
Stage 1 - 992
Stage 2 - 993
Approach
HCM Control Delay, s/v 5.85
HCM LOS A
EB
WB SB
0 8.82
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1440 - - - 982
0.008 0.04
A A - A
0 0.1
Bellflower Convenience Center Project/1-25-4714-1 Synchro 12 Report LLG Engineers 11/13/2025
Bellflower Convenience Center
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Bellflower, CA
SWC Bellflower Boulevard and Ramona Street
Bellflower, CA 90706
Prepared for:
DGSG Investment Properties, LLC
3940 Laurel Canyon Blvd #139
Studio City, CA 91604
310-491-5925
Prepared by:
Kimley>>>Horn
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
401 B Street, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92101
619-234-9411
1st Submittal: August 2025
2nd Submittal: December2025
0 Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Project Description and Purpose 3
2.Low Impact Development 3
2.1 Designated Project Classification 3
2.2 Stormwater Management Requirements for Designated Projects 4
2.3 Watershed -Based Plan Conditions 4
2.4 Potential Stormwater Pollutants 4
2.5 Feasibility of Infiltration 4
2.6 Site Design Principles 5
2.7 Source Control BMPs 5
2.8 Stormwater Quality Volume Calculation 5
Table 1: 85th Percentile Storm Runoff 5
3.Best Management Practices (BMPs) 6
3.1 Structural BMPs 6
4.Overflow Storm Calculations 6
4.1 Pre vs. Post Development Analysis 6
4.2 Overflow Condition and Routing 7
5.BMP and Drainage Structures Maintenance 7
5.1 Property Ownership/Management 7
5.2 Shared Structural BMPs 7
5.3 BMP Maintenance and Operations Plan 8
6 References 8
1 iPage
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
Tables
Table 1: 85th Percentile Storm Runoff
Table 2: Existing 50 -Year Flow Summary Table
Table 3: Proposed 50 -Year Flow Summary Table
Appendices
Appendix A Drainage Plan
Appendix B Hydrology Maps
Appendix C HydroCalc Outputs
Appendix D BMP Sizing Calculations
Appendix E Overflow Storm Calculations
Appendix F Geotechnical Report
Appendix G Master Covenant and Agreement
2'Page
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description and Purpose
The Bellflower Convenience Center (Project) is located at 17617, 17625, and 17639 Bellflower Blvd, Bellflower, CA 90706. The Project is located in the County of Los Angeles and is located approximately
1.1 miles West of the San Gabriel River.
The Project consists of the redevelopment of the entire Bellflower Convenience Center lot. The project area includes the following improvements: four new building pads, associated parking, and proposed landscape shown in Appendix A. Redevelopment will also incorporate drainage and stormwater BMPs.
Kimley-Horn is contracted to produce construction documents for the redevelopment. This report summarizes the Low Impact Development (LID) analyses related to the project. •• u
'�� rUSGIS Appl.wt.
•• Supp er
7•Eleven
IM
Figure 1: Project Location, NTS
2. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Designated Project Classification
The project encompasses approximately 158,192 (3.63 ac) and previously consisted of multiple vacant buildings and surrounding parking areas. The project is considered a Designated Project because it is a redevelopment project that results in creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. This project is required to adhere to all requirements set forth in the current MS4 permit and General Construction Permit.
3IPage
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
2.2 Stormwater Management Requirements for Designated Projects All Designated Projects must retain 100 percent of the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv) on - site through infiltration, evapotranspiration, stormwater runoff harvest and use, or a combination thereof unless it demonstrated that is technically infeasible to do so. The Project will implement underground retention vaults to fully infiltrate the SWQDv.
2.3 Watershed -Based Plan Conditions
Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff within the project generally sheet flows in the southeasterly and northeasterly directions and sheet flows towards Ramona St. and Cedar St., where the water travels through gutters and eventually trapped by curb opening catch basins. The LA County owned storm drain system discharges to San Gabriel River Reach 2. The San Gabriel River Reach 2 enters the San Gabriel River Reach 1, the San Gabriel River Estuary, and ultimately the San Pedro Bay Near/Offshore Zones.
There are no hydromodification requirements because the project area does not discharge to a natural drainage system. The receiving waterbody and downstream waterbodies have the following impairments per the 2018 California Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. • San Gabriel River Reach 2: Lead, Cyanide, Water Temperature • San Gabriel River Reach 1: Water Temperature, pH
• San Gabriel River Estuary: Nickel, Dissolved Oxygen, Dioxin, Copper, Indicator Bacteria • San Pedro Bay Near/Offshore Zones: Total DDT, PCBs, Toxicity, Chlordane
2.4 Potential Stormwater Pollutants
Pollutants of concern potentially generated by the project include suspended solid/sediment; nutrients; metal; and trash and debris. Priority pollutants of concern include nutrients, and trash. BMPs as described in Sections 3 and 4 will be used to minimize and prevent these pollutants in the stormwater runoff from the project site.
2.5 Feasibility of Infiltration
Per the Geotechnical Exploration Report dated April 19, 2021, completed by Krazan & Associates, Inc., field infiltration tests found unfactored infiltration rates of 51 inches per hour at depths 8 ft below ground surface (bgs). A factor of Safety of 12 has been applied to the unfactored infiltration rate per the Geotechnical Report. The final design infiltration rate of 4.25 inches per hour will be used for the design of the proposed infiltration BMPs. Per the Geotechnical Report, the bottom of the infiltration BMP will be at 8 ft bgs. A copy of the Geotechnical Exploration Report is included in Appendix F.
Groundwater was not encountered during the geotechnical investigation. Per the geotechnical engineer, based on modern historical data, minimum groundwater depths of approximately 50 feet bgs are expected in this area. The infiltration BMP will be 42 feet above the historical groundwater depth.
Infiltration BMPs will be located on the south side of the project. These BMPs do not pose risk of pollutant mobilization, have sufficient setbacks from existing structures or foundations, would not damage existing utilities, and are further than 100 feet away from any groundwater production wells. There are no Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) within the vicinity of the project site. 4IPage
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
2.6 Site Design Principles
There is no existing storm water management on site. Proposed conditions are to capture and treat all storm water on site. In addition, overall impervious areas were reduced from a 97.1% impervious site to
86.1% imperviousness.
2.7 Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs include permanent, structural features, such as roofs over and berms around trash and recycling areas, and Operational BMPs, such as regular sweeping and "housekeeping", that must be implemented by the site's occupant or user. Per Table 5-1 (Source Control Measures Selections Matrix) of the LID Manual, the following source control measures should be implemented due to the proposed uses at the site:
• Storm Drain Message and Signage (S-1) - Signs with language and/or graphical icons that prohibit illegal dumping, must be posted at catch basins within project area. • Landscape Irrigation Practices (S-8) — Apply efficient irrigations practices by not allowing irrigation runoff from landscaped areas to drain directly to storm drain system; minimize use of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides on landscaped areas, and plan sites with sufficient landscape area and dispersal capacity.
• Building Materials (S-9) — Building materials can potentially contribute pollutants of concern to stormwater runoff through leaching. The use of alternative building materials can reduce pollutant sources in stormwater runoff by eliminating compounds that can leach into stormwaterrunoff.
2.8 Stormwater Quality Volume Calculation
The SWQDv was calculated in accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LACDPW, 2014). Per the manual, the design storm from which the SWQDv is calculated is defined as the greater of:
• The 0.75 -inch, 24 -hour rain event; or
• The 85th percentile, 24 -hr rain event as determined from the Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal map.
The 85th percentile, 24 -hr rain event for the project site was approximately 0.90 inches and was selected as the SWQDv design storm for the LID design. The project site has type 6 soils based on Los Angeles County GIS Hydrology Map. The Los Angeles County HydroCalc hydrologic calculator was used to complete the Modified Rational Method calculation process to determine the SWQDv. Table 1 shows the HydroCalc results for the 85th percentile storm for the Project limits.
Table 1: 85th Percentile Storm Runoff
Subarea ID
Area
Imperviousness
Clear Peak
24 -Hour Clear
Runoff Volume
(acres)
(%)
Flow Rate (cfs)
(cubic -feet)
DMA 1
0.68 87.9
0.1529
1,770
DMA 2
0.75 83.3
0.1572
1,862
DMA 3
0.85 86.2
0.1796
2,175
DMA 4
0.68 92.9
0.1503
1,858
DMA 5
0.43 77.2
0.0864
1,000
Total
3.39 86.1
0.7264
8,665
5IPage
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES(BMPS)
LID calculations were performed to determine the effects of the proposed construction on the existing site. The feasibility calculations have been performed based on the County of Los Angeles, Low Impact Development Standards Manual (LACDPW, 2014). The layout of the proposed BMP's can be seen in the preliminary drainage plan in Appendix A.
Infiltration based BMPs are proposed to treat the SWQDv. Runoff from the project site is captured with on -site catch basins with filter inserts to serve as pre-treatment. Runoff is then conveyed to various retention/infiltration systems to treat the stormwater volume from the project limits. The project uses three Contech Cistern retention vaults. Detention volume has been sized, is included in the calculations, and shown on plans in Appendix A. The maximum infiltration depth was calculated using the design infiltration rate of 4.25 inches per hour and the equation below. Refer to Appendix D for full BMP calculations and manufacturer's system design output.
Max depth= `''12d'
(Eq. 1)
Where, tp = Drawdown time, max 96 hours (hr)
fd = Design infiltration rate (in/hr)
3.1 Structural BMPs
Design treatment flow from the Project will enter the detention system, Contech Cistern, via a proposed underground storm drain system and infiltrate from the permeable bottom. The infiltration system locations are indicated in the drainage plan in Appendix A. LID calculations and sizing for the system have been included in Appendix D. The Contech Cistern system will be installed with an additional pretreatment chamber to protect the media underneath the retention system from any sediment or debris. Refer to the infiltration system detail in Appendix D.
4. OVERFLOW STORM CALCULATIONS
4.1 Pre vs. Post Development Analysis
In accordance with the reviewer comments, an analysis of pre vs. post development peak discharge rates was conducted using the 24 -hour, 50 -year rainfall depth of 5.75 inches as determined from the LA County Hydrology Map attached in Appendix B. An Existing Drainage Exhibit has been prepared showing the drainage area delineations and is included in Appendix A. The Los Angeles County HydroCalc hydrologic calculator was used to complete the Modified Rational Method calculation process to determine the Existing Peak Discharge. Table 2 shows the HydroCalc results for the 24 -hour, 50 -year storm for the existing project limits. These results are also included in Appendix E.
Table 2: Existing 50 -Year Flow Summary Table
Subarea ID
Area
(acres)
Imperviousness
(%)
Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
DMA 1
1.00 99.9
2.83 DMA 2
0.93 96.1
2.87 DMA 3
0.94 96.2
2.90 DMA 4
0.52 94.9
1.60 Total
3.39 97.1
10.20 6'Page
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Analysis of the proposed condition was also completed using the Los Angeles County HydroCalc hydrologic calculator. Table 3 shows the HydroCalc results for the 24 -hour, 50 -year storm for the proposed project limits. These results are also included in Appendix E.
Table 3: Proposed 50 -Year Flow Summary Table
Subarea ID
Area
(acres)
Imperviousness
(%)
Peak Flow
Rate (cfs)
DMA 1
0.68 87.9
2.09 DMA 2
0.75 83.3
2.30 DMA 3
0.85 86.2
2.38 DMA 4
0.68 92.9
1.92 DMA 5
0.43 77.2
1.31 Total
3.39 86.1
9.99 As shown in the analysis of both the pre- and post -development condition, the proposed project will result in less flow exiting the project site as a result increased landscape coverage. No peak flow mitigation is required on -site.
4.2 Overflow Condition and Routing
The Project consists of three drainage areas that will be treated by three underground storm drain systems. Discharge from the site parking drainage area will enter a diversion structure that will allow the 85 -percentile flow for the Project limits to enter the infiltration system via an 8 -inch storm drain. Runoff exceeding the 85 -percentile storm event will stage up in the diversion structure and discharge via curb drains to Bellflower Street and Ramona St. This system allows for all runoff to be initially intercepted and stored in the underground retention structures, then once the 85th -percentile storm volume is reached, all excess flow will be diverted through parkway drains. This configuration allows for the maximum retention of flow and does not increase the flow exiting the site as the peak flow in the proposed condition is less than the existing condition.
5. BMP AND DRAINAGE STRUCTURES MAINTENANCE
5.1 Property Ownership/Management
The BMPs will be inspected and maintained by the property owner.
5.2 Shared Structural BMPs
This project is designed to include shared underground storm systems between multiple tenants. Pad 1 and Pad 2 will share underground storm detention RT-1'. Pads 3 and 4 will share RT-2'. The electric vehicle parking parcel will not share an underground system with any other tenants outside of the parcel and will have its own system identified as RT-3'. It shall be recorded in the Project's CC&Rs that the maintenance of each underground storm system will be at the shared cost of the tenant(s) whose drainage runoff enters the system. A Property Management group shall be identified in the CC&Rs to manage and hold the tenant(s) responsible for future cost(s) of the system, including but not limited to maintenance.
7IPage
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
5.3 BMP Maintenance and Operations Plan
The BMP's set forth in this report will be funded, implemented, and maintained by the property owner.
Fair share operation and maintenance costs are to be shared between the tenants, and responsibilities outlined in the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) recorded to the property. If a new tenant comes into the parcel, the BMPs are to remain in place. In general, all BMPs should be inspected before and after the rainy season as well as during regular maintenance of the storm drain catch basins. A maintenance schedule will be established and retained for records. 6 REFERENCES
Department of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation (2012). "Caltrans Stormwater Statewide Program". Water Quality Planning Tool. http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wgpt/wgpt.aspx . Accessed March 2019.
Los Angeles County (2017). Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration. Prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2019.
Los Angeles County (1982). Hydraulic Design Manual. Prepared by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 2019.
Los Angeles County (2014). Low Impact Development Standards Manual. Prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2019.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (n.d.). https://pw.lacounty.gov/fcd/StormDrain/index.cfm .
Accessed July 2019.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (n.d.). https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/ .
Accessed July 2019.
Stormwater Engineering Division, LA County Public Works (n.d.) "Stormwater Engineering Division".
Hydrology Map. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis/ . Accessed March 2019.
Water Resources Division, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2006). Hydrology Manual. Accessed January 2019.
8'Page
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix A: Drainage Plan
9IPage
310
L=264'
8 nal rmi.,
—ter_
-1-
r.
I
I
1 II •I I I = I I/ 1 I I =
\N
It
I I I = I I I = I
V'•
__-
BELLFLOWER BLVD
I I I I I I I I I I I
6MA
1 1.00
L=347'
`
iI = I l i = I C I = I l i = I i i = i l l = I i i = i l l y EXISTING 50 -YEAR FLOW SUMMARY TABLE
DRAINAGE
AREA
AREA (AC)
IMPERVIOUS (%)
FLOW PATH
LENGTH
24 -HR, 50-YR
RAINFALL DEPTH (IN)
PEAK FLOW
S)
RUNOFF VOLUME
(CUF
DMA 1
1.00 99.9
347
5.75 2.83
18616
DMA 2
0.93 96.1
321
5.75 2.87
16809
DMA 3
0.94 96.2
230
5.75 2.90
17003
DMA 4
0.52 94.9
264
5.75 1.60
9309
TOTAL
3.39 97.1
-
5.75 10.20
61737
/I� M
A2
0.93 •
II = I I I = I I I = I I I = I I I = I I I = I I I = I I I = I I I = II / L=321'
LEGEND
2 8
N
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
15 30 60
(XXXX)-
imP
■
PROPERTY LINE/ ROW
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
SETBACK LINE
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA
BOUNDARY
EXISTING SURFACE ELEVATION
CONTOUR
LONGEST FLOW PATH
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
AREA ID
DMA AREA (ACRES)
SHEET FLOW DIRECTION
Kimley
401
SA\
www.kimley— horn.com
3 STEET,
DIEGO,
(619)
FOR:
CITY,
TEL.
Be
If ower,
REVISIONS
CANYON
(310)
234-9411
CALIFORNIA
fowe
3 SUITE
CA
Properties,
BOULEVARD
491-5925
vd. &
CA 90706
DESCRIPTION
600
92101
LLC
#139
91604
r
Ce ter
Ramona St.
A PROJECT
DGSG Investment
3940 LAUREL
STUDIO
Co veniece
SWC 3ellflower
Be
ISSUES /
No. DATE
1 08.14.25 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & C.U.P.
AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS, AND INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF McKENTLY MALAK ARCHITECTS, INC.. NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS,
OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE
SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF McKENTLY MALAK ARCHITECTS, INC. VISUAL
CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
JOB NUMBER:195306001
DRAWN BY: KHA CHECKED BY: KK
DATE: 11/7/2025
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
EXISTING
DRAINAGE
EXHIBIT
SHEET NUMBER:
X 1
BASED ON SCHEME --
PR. LOT LINE
•• PR. LOT LINE
8 64_
-65
-66-
4 HIGH POINT
GRADE BREAK
=NM -
_65 - _ - BELLFLOWER BLVD
LID SUMMARY TABLE
DESIGN STORM :
85TH PERCENTILE (0.9")
DRAINAGE AREA
AREA (SF)
IMPERVIOUS (%)
SWQDV (CF)
STRUCTURAL BMP
BMP TYPE
DETENTION
REQUIRED
DETENTION
PROVIDED
DMA 1
29,626
87.9 1,770
RT-1
UNDERGROUND RETENTION
TANK
3632
3,700
DMA 2
32,633
83.3 1,862
DMA 3
36,893
86.2 2,175
RT-2
UNDERGROUND RETENTION
TANK
4033
4,100
DMA 4
29,790
92.9 1,858
DMA 5
18,617
77.2 1,000
RT-3
UNDERGROUND RETENTION
TANK
1000
1,100
PROPOSED 50 -YEAR FLOW SUMMARY TABLE
DRAINAGE
AREA
AREA (AC)
IMPERVIOUS (%)
FLOW PATH
LENGTH
24 -HR, 50-YR
RAINFALL DEPTH (IN)
PEAK FLOW
SF
RUNOFF VOLUME
DMA 1
0.68 87.9
298
5.75 2.09
11,495
DMA 2
0.75 83.3
314
5.75 2.30
12186
DMA 3
0.85 86.2
346
5.75 2.38
14,162
DMA 4
0.68 92.9
412
5.75 1.92
11,980
DMA 5
0.43 77.2
282
5.75 1.31
6,613
TOTAL
3.39 86.1
-
5.75 9.99
56,435
i
STORM DRAIN NOTES
O
INSTALL PVC SDR-26 STORM DRAIN PIPE.
INSTALL PRECAST JUNCTION STRUCTURE TO TRANSITION FROM ON -SITE
FLOW TO PUBLIC FLOW ENTERING PARKWAY DRAIN
CONTECH CISTERN, LID DETENTION SYSTEM. SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET C-13
INSTALL JENSEN PRECAST DROP INLET WITH FLOGARD CATCH BASIN INSERT INSTALL PRECAST DIVERSION STRUCTURE.
CURB -O -LET CURB DRAIN.
CURB -O -LET PIPE UNDER SIDEWALK.
LOW POINT
GRADE BREAK
co
z
O
PR. LOT LINE Q
f1
-- �
LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
15 30 60
XXXX
(XXXX)- - - -
GB
SD
GB
PROPERTY LINE/ ROW
LOT LINE
CENTERLINE
SETBACK LINE
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA
BOUNDARY
FINISHED SURFACE CONTOUR
ELEVATION
EXISTING SURFACE ELEVATION
CONTOUR
PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN
LONGEST FLOW PATH
GRADE BREAK (RIDGE LINE)
XX%
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
AREA ID
DMA AREA (ACRES)
SHEET FLOW DIRECTION
GRADE
Kimley »Horn
401 3 STREET, SUITE 600
SA\ DIEGO, CA 92101
(619) 234-9411
www.kimley— horn.com
A PROJECT FOR:
DGSG Investment Properties, LLC
3940 LAUREL CANYON BOULEVARD #139
STUDIO CITY, CALIFORNIA 91604
TEL. (310) 491-5925
Be
Co venie
SWC
r
ower
ce Ce ter
3ellflower 3 vd. & Ramona St.
Be If ower, CA 90706
ISSUES / REVISIONS
No. DATE DESCRIPTION
1 08.14.25 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & C.U.P.
AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS, AND INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF McKENTLY MALAK ARCHITECTS, INC.. NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS,
OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE
SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF McKENTLY MALAK ARCHITECTS, INC. VISUAL
CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.
JOB NUMBER:195306001
DRAWN BY: KHA CHECKED BY: KK
DATE: 11/7/2025
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
CONCEPTUAL
STORM DRAIN
PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
C-11
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
BASED ON SCHEME --
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix B: Hydrology Maps
10IPage
LA County Hydrology Map
17617 bellflower blvd X
Layers
Layers
▪ Hydrology GIS
❑ 50yr Two Tenths (Rainfall)
❑ DPA Zones
❑ Soils 2004
Q Final 85th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
❑ 1 -year. 1 -hour Rainfall
Intensity
❑ Final 95th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
Q LA County Parcels
r Fbpn School
3rd
SI
nt
h St
d St
o• '
ersel Blvd '".%
ern
2 2
E 69th St
8 O
a
G
0 Sr,
St Park
Abndra
Ebmentarl
School
Arlsal aiF.w.y
Hardwick St
td4chelson51
Bolivar
Perk
P
411
AbMra Blvd
(191
1 U
9 Olive St
to Mayne St
o Simms Oak St
Perk
Flower St
Maple St
• Walnut SI
Del Amo Blvd
Park St
Artesia Blvd
Ramona SI
I
Ca
0 3
Q
Cedar St
Rose SI
Ashworth St
Hedda St a
a
U
South St
wood St
Lakewood
Center
a'
ter
r
0 Ardmore Ave
&each St
Lakewoo
Q
6 Bellflower
Bellflower
Huh
Sc hoof
e7 Parcel: 7161012002
Zoom to
C
San
Martin
Park
L
Mayfair 9
High
School
rrrt,uirk c,
Rosecrans Ave
r
a
S
in
tF
I
Aarrtlra Blvd
Carta Ave
'Iron -
Nine Golf
Course
it; X
Liberh
Park
Boyar
Park
Liggett St
Elmcroft Ave
Condos
Community
College
rd)
hoot
Cerritos
Best Plaza
Los
Combs
Center
N
eny P. • cc
e 92
a Y • Gridley I
e 5 Fbskd
31 Middle
2 School
.e
T Del Amn t
i •
Arthur
Gerdes
Perk
I
Feuro St
2 Barnwell
Y
Lj di
6th St
Ff
South St
195th St
a
lacounty.gov I Public Works FAQ I Privacy / Terms of Use I Feedback I 13
Q Hydrology GIS
is 50yr Two Tenths (Rainfall)
❑ DPA Zones
❑ Soils 2004
❑ Final 85th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
❑ 1 -year. 1 -hour Rainfall
Intensity
❑ Final 95th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
!a�i11�11I!IuII1Uin
■�Ipli�lu�Ulll-
l:mnnuulii,
LA County Hydrology Map
uwer blvd
Layers
Q Hydrology GIS
❑ 50yr Two Tenths (Rainfall)
❑ DPA Zones
❑ Soils 2004
❑ Final 85th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
❑ 1 -year, 1 -hour Rainfall
Intensity
❑ Final 95th Percentile. 24 -hr
Rainfall
Q LA County Parcels
007
I
Can
CJ7tad
—70
_
I
6 I ll '
I
II
1 LIE 1iIIU1
I : I I . i
1i-
1111
-
}
or
x
Parcel: 7161012002
Z:: t:
lacounty.gov I Public Works FAQ I Privacy / Terms of Use I Feedback I
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix C: HydroCalc Outputs
11 lPage
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Bellflower Convenience Ce Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 1
0.68 298.0
0.01 0.9
0.879
6 85th percentile storm
0 True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft)
0.2799
0.1 0.8032
20.0 0.1529
0.1529
0.0406
1769.6192
0.16 0.14 -
0.12 -
0.10 -
w
3 0.08 -
o
0.06 -
Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 1)
0.00 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200 1400 1600
1 ter - DMA 1.pc
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Bellflower Convenience Ce Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 2
0.75 314.0
0.01 0.9
0.833
6 85th percentile storm
0 True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft)
0.2735
0.1 0.7664
21.0 0.1572
0.1572
0.0428
1862.3624
0.16 0.14
0.12 0.10
3 0.08
0.06 0.04
0.02 0.00
Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 2)
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200 1400 1600
1 ter - DMA 2.pc
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Bellflower Convenience Ce Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 3
0.85 346.0
0.01 0.9
0.862
6 85th percentile storm
0 True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft)
0.2676
0.1 0.7896
22.0 0.1796
0.1796
0.0499
2174.5718
0.18 0.16 -
0.14 -
0.12 -
0.06 -
0.04 -
0.02 -
0.00 Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 3)
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200 1400 1600
1 ter - DMA 3.pc
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Bellflower Convenience Ce Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 4
0.68 412.0
0.01 0.9
0.929
6 85th percentile storm
0 True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft)
0.2621
0.1 0.8432
23.0 0.1503
0.1503
0.0426
1857.7507
0.16 0.14
0.12 0.10
3 0.08
0.06 0.04
0.02 0.00
Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 4)
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (minutes)
1200 1400 1600
1 ter - DMA 4.pc
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Bellflower Convenience Ce Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.772
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID True
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 5
0.43 282.0
0.01 0.9
6 85th percentile storm
0 Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.9 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.2799
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.0864
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.023
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 999.7654
0.7176
20.0 0.0864
0.09 0.08
0.07 0.06
w 0.05
2 0.04
0.03 0.02
0.01 0.00
Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 5)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
1 ter - DMA 5.pc
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix D: BMP Sizing Calculations
12IPage
LID SWQDvCalculations
All calculations based on the LID Standards Manual, May 2014, for the Los Angeles County Date: 4 -Aug -25
Calculated/ Checked by: NS
Project: Bellflower Convenience Center
Locality: Los Angeles County
State California
Drainage Area
Area (sq ft)
Area (acres)
Longest Flow
Path (ft)
Slope (ft/ft)
85th % depth
(in)
Impervious
Area (%)
Soil Type
SWQDV (cf)
DMA1
29,621
0.68 298
0.01 0.9
87.9%
6 1,770
DMA2
32,670
0.75 314
0.01 0.9
83.3%
6 1,862
DMA3
37,026
0.85 346
0.01 0.9
86.2%
6 2,175
DMA 4
29,621
0.68 412
0.01 0.9
92.9%
6 1,858
DMA 5
18,731
0.43 282
0.01 0.9
77.2%
6 1,000
Total
128,938
3.39 -
0.01 0.9
86.1%
6 8,665
-CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/
REINFORCED BULKHEAD
EQUALIZATION
MANIFOLD (CSP)
N
12' 0"
0 M
Lo
,
o
O
O
ASSEMBLY
SCALE: 1" = 10'
2'-6" TYP.
ACCESS RISER
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPROVES THE ATTACHED
(6) PAGES INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:
• MAINLINE PIPE GAGE = 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8
• WALL TYPE = SOLID OR PERF
• DIAMETER = 12 - 144"
• FINISH = ALT2, POLY, GALV, ALUM
• CORRUGATION = 2 2/3x1/2, 3x1, 5x1
CUSTOMER
DATE
BAND, TYPICAL /
SEE DETAIL SHEET C3
NOTES
12'-0"
N_ REINFORCED BULKHEAD
WITH STUB
2'-6" TYP.
ACCESS RISERS
• ALL RISER AND STUB DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE.
• ALL ELEVATIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND LOCATIONS OF RISERS AND INLETS, SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR) PRIOR TO RELEASING FOR FABRICATION. • ALL FITTINGS AND REINFORCEMENT COMPLY WITH ASTM A998. • ALL RISERS AND STUBS ARE 23" x4" CORRUGATION AND 16 GAGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
• RISERS TO BE FIELD TRIMMED TO GRADE AS REQUIRED, BY CONTRACTOR. • QUANTITY OF PIPE SHOWN DOES NOT PROVIDE EXTRA PIPE FOR CONNECTING THE SYSTEM TO EXISTING PIPE OR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. OUR SYSTEM AS DETAILED PROVIDES NOMINAL INLET AND/OR OUTLET PIPE STUB FOR CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES. IF ADDITIONAL PIPE IS NEEDED IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. • ALL ACCESS CASTINGS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND ARE NOT SUPPLIED BY CONTECH.
C:\USERS\DH OP KIN
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as aservice to the project owner, engineer and contractor by CotehE g' ee ed Sol to LLC ( Co to h ). Ne the th'
drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
MARK
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
"TECH
IMAGEREINED SCUITICINS LLC
www.ContechES.com
9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069 800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX
linin-111 TEAM
Clir LECENTICK SYSTEMS
CONTECH
CONTRACT
DRAWING
12 - 144"O SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
SAMPLE PROJECT
ANYTOWN, USA
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No.:
DATE:
1/10/2019
DESIGNED:
xxx
DRAWN:
DAH
CHECKED:
xxx
APPROVED:
xxx
SHEET NO.:
C 1 OF
6 20 MIL PE
IMPERMEABLE
LINER OVER
TOP OF PIPE
(IF REQUIRED)
TYPICAL SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
iRIES" SEE TYPICAL
- BACKFILL DETAIL
NOTES
NOTE: IF SALTING AGENTS FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL ARE USED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT, A GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE SYSTEM. THE
GEOMEMBRANE LINER IS INTENDED TO HELP PROTECT THE SYSTEM FROM THE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM A CHANGE IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. PLEASE REFER TO THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE DETENTION DESIGN GUIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. a
-CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/
LIMITS OF
REQUIRED
BACKFILL
FOUNDATION/BEDDING PREPARATION
KEY 0
RIGID OR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
2. GRANULAR ROAD BASE
3. 12" MIN. FOR DIAMETERS THROUGH 96"
18" MIN. FOR DIAMETERS FROM 102"
AND LARGER MEASURED TO TOP OF RIGID
OR BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT.
4. SELECT GRANULAR FILL PER AASHTO M145
Al, A2 OR A3, OR APPROVED EQUAL.
PLACED IN 8" LIFTS (COMPACTED TO MIN.
90% STANDARD DENSITY PER AASHTO T99.)
5. GRANULAR BEDDING, ROUGHLY SHAPED TO
FIT THE BOTTOM OF PIPE, 4" TO 6" IN DEPTH
PRIOR TO PLACING THE BEDDING, THE FOUNDATION MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO A UNIFORM AND STABLE GRADE. IN THE EVENT THAT UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING EXCAVATION, THEY SHALL BE REMOVED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE GRADE WITH A FILL MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ONCE THE FOUNDATION PREPARATION IS COMPLETE, 4" - 6" OF A WELL -GRADED GRANULAR MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AS THE BEDDING.
BACKFILL
THE BACKFILL SHALL BE AN Al, A2 OR A3 GRANULAR FILL PER AASHTO M145, OR A WELL -GRADED GRANULAR FILL AS APPROVED BY THE SITE ENGINEER (SEE INSTALLATION GUIDELINES). THE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN 8" LOOSE LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO 90% AASHTO T99 STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. WHEN PLACING THE FIRST LIFTS OF BACKFILL IT IS IMPORTANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE BACKFILL IS PROPERLY COMPACTED UNDER AND AROUND THE PIPE HAUNCHES. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THERE IS NO MORE THAN A TWO LIFT (16") DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN ANY OF THE PIPES AT ANY TIME DURING THE BACKFILL PROCESS. THE BACKFILL SHALL BE ADVANCED ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM AT THE SAME RATE TO AVOID DIFFERENTIAL LOADING ON THE PIPE.
OTHER ALTERNATE BACKFILL MATERIAL MAY BE ALLOWED DEPENDING ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, AS APPROVED BY SITE ENGINEER.
BACKFILL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
C:\USERS\DH OP KIN
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as aservice to the project owner, engineer and contractor by CotehE g' ee ed Sol to LLC ( Co to h ). Ne the th'
drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
plARK
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
"rECH'
awarmant UIII6LLC
www.ContechES.com
11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive, Portland, OR 97220
800-548-4667 503-240-3393 800-561-1271 FAX
I/ lir
CIE MEW= s
CONTECH
CONTRACT
DRAWING
12 - 144"0 SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
SAMPLE PROJECT
ANYTOWN, USA
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No.:
DATE:
1/10/2019
DESIGNED:
xxx
DRAWN:
DAH
CHECKED:
xxx
APPROVED:
xxx
SHEET NO.:
C2 (2 OF 6
20 MIL PE
IMPERMEABLE
LINER OVER
TOP OF PIPE
(IF REQUIRED)
12 - 144" TYP.
TYPICAL SECTION VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
I Is!
ViTS
NOTE: IF SALTING AGENTS FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL ARE USED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT, A GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE SYSTEM. THE
GEOMEMBRANE LINER IS INTENDED TO HELP PROTECT THE SYSTEM FROM THE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM A CHANGE IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. PLEASE REFER TO THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE DETENTION DESIGN GUIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. -CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/7/2019 5:49 PM
LIMITS OF
REQUIRED
BACKFILL
VARIES" SEE TYPICAL
BACKFILL DETAIL
NOTES
FOUNDATION/BEDDING PREPARATION
KEY 0
1.) RIGID OR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
2.) GRANULAR ROAD BASE
3.) 12" MIN. FOR DIAMETERS THROUGH 96"
18" MIN. FOR DIAMETERS FROM 102"
AND LARGER MEASURED TO TOP OF
RIGID OR BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT.
4.) FREE DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED
STONE 3/4" - 2" MIN. PARTICLE SIZE.
5.) GRANULAR BEDDING, ROUGHLY
SHAPED TO FIT THE BOTTOM OF PIPE,
4"- 6" IN DEPTH.
6.) CONTECH C-40 OR C-45
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
REQUIRED, WRAPPING TRENCH
ONLY.
PRIOR TO PLACING THE BEDDING, THE FOUNDATION MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO A UNIFORM AND STABLE GRADE. IN THE EVENT THAT UNSUITABLE FOUNDATION
MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING EXCAVATION, THEY SHALL BE REMOVED
AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE GRADE WITH A FILL MATERIAL AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ONCE THE FOUNDATION PREPARATION IS COMPLETE, THE 4 INCHES OF A WELL -GRADED GRANULAR MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AS THE BEDDING.
BACKFILL
THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE -DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED STONE 3/4" - 2" PARTICLE SIZE. MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN 8"-10" MAXIMUM LIFTS.
MATERIAL SHALL BE WORKED INTO THE PIPE HAUNCHES BY MEANS OF SHOVEL -
SLICING, RODDING, AIR -TAMPER, VIBRATORY ROD, OR OTHER EFFECTIVE METHODS
COMPACTION IS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE WHEN NO FURTHER YIELDING OF THE
MATERIAL IS OBSERVED UNDER THE COMPACTOR, OR UNDER FOOT, AND THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE IS SATISFIED WITH THE LEVEL OF COMPACTION.
INADEQUATE COMPACTION CAN LEAD TO EXCESSIVE DEFLECTIONS WITHIN THE SYSTEM AND SETTLEMENT OF THE SOILS OVER THE SYSTEM. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH
THAT THERE IS NO MORE THAN A TWO -LIFT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE SIDES OF ANY PIPE IN THE SYSTEM AT ALL TIMES DURING THE BACKFILL PROCESS. BACKFILL SHALL
BE ADVANCED ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE SYSTEM AT THE SAME RATE TO AVOID DIFFERENTIAL LOADING ON ANY PIPES IN THE SYSTEM.
EQUIPMENT USED TO PLACE AND COMPACT THE BACKFILL SHALL BE OF A SIZE AND TYPE SO AS NOT TO DISTORT, DAMAGE, OR DISPLACE THE PIPE. ATTENTION MUST
BE GIVEN TO PROVIDING ADEQUATE MINIMUM COVER FOR SUCH EQUIPMENT, AND
MAINTAINING BALANCED LOADING ON ALL PIPES IN THE SYSTEM, DURING ALL SUCH OPERATIONS.
OTHER ALTERNATE BACKFILL MATERIAL MAY BE ALLOWED DEPENDING ON SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. REFER TO TYPICAL BACKFILL DETAIL FOR MATERIAL REQUIRED.
1 \ BACKFILL DETAIL
C3 / SCALE: N.T.S.
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as aservice to the project owner, engineer and contractor by Co te h E g' ee etl Solut'o s LLC ( Co te h ). Ne'the th's drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the d aw' g based a d act al fold o dyo see o te ed
as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
WaiTECIf
EIAMEREED s1 LILC
www.ContechES.com
11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive, Portland, OR 97220
800-548-4667
503-240-3393 800-561-1271 FAX
trirldirMiTraMI-
CIPEOEUNTICAISYSTES15
CONTECH
CONTRACT
DRAWING
12 - 144"0 SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
SAMPLE PROJECT
ANYTOWN, USA
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No..
DATE:
1/10/2019
DESIGNED:
xxx
DRAWN:
DAH
CHECKED:
MO(
APPROVED:
XXX
SHEET NO.:
C2 OF 6
0 MARK
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
a
-CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/
12"
CONNECTION DETAIL
7 1/2" TECHCO SHOWN - MAY VARY
GENERAL NOTES:
1. 2.
3. 4.
TECHCO BAND ANGLES
1/2" DIA. BOLT
RISER
EXTENSION
ELEVATION VIEW
OF CMP AND RISER
PLAIN END CMP RISER PIPE
DELIVERED BAND STYLE AND FASTENER TYPE MAY VARY BY FABRICATION PLANT.
JOINT IS TO BE ASSEMBLED PER AASHTO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION SEC 26.4.2.4.
BAND MATERIAL AND GAGE TO BE SAME AS RISER MATERIAL.
IF RISER HAS A HEIGHT OF COVER OF 10' OR MORE, USE A SLIP JOINT.
5. BANDS ARE NORMALLY FURNISHED AS FOLLOWS:
• 12" THRU 48" 1 -PIECE
• 54" 2 -PIECES
FLAT BAND SHOWN,
MAY VARY (NO
GASKET)
MAINLINE
PIPE
6. ALL RISER JOINT COMPONENTS WILL BE FIELD ASSEMBLED.
7. MANHOLE RISERS IN APPLICATIONS WHERE TRAFFIC LOADS ARE IMPOSED REQUIRE SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
8. DIMENSIONS SUBJECT TO MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES.
12" RISER BAND DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
SINGLE BAR,
BOLT AND STRAP (SBBS)
CONNECTION DETAIL
(SBBS)
HUGGER
BAND
FLAT GASKET
FLAT GASKET
2 2/3"x1/2" RE -ROLLED END HEL-COR PIPE
GENERAL NOTES:
JOINT IS TO BE ASSEMBLED PER AASHTO BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION SEC 26.4.2.4.
2. BAND MATERIALS AND/OR COATING CAN VARY BY LOCATION. CONTACT YOUR CONTECH REPRESENTATIVE FOR AVAILABILITY.
3. BANDS ARE SHAPED TO MATCH THE PIPE -ARCH WHEN APPLICABLE.
4. BANDS ARE NORMALLY FURNISHED AS FOLLOWS:
• 12" THRU 48" 1 -PIECE
• 54" THRU 96" 2 -PIECES
• 102" THRU 144" 3 -PIECES
5. BAND FASTENERS ARE ATTACHED WITH SPOT WELDS, RIVETS OR HAND WELDS.
6. ALL CMP IS REROLLED TO HAVE ANNULAR END CORRUGATIONS OF 2 2/3"x1/2"
7. DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO MANUFACTURING TOLERANCES.
8. ORDER SHALL DESIGNATE GASKET OPTION, IF REQUIRED (SEE DETAILS ABOVE).
H-12 HUGGER BAND DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
C:\USERS\DH OP KIN
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as aservice to the project owner, engineer and contractor by CotehE g' ee ed Sol to LLC ( Co to h ). Ne the th'
drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the users own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
plARK
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
"rECH'
awarmant SCUITIC105LLC
www.ContechES.com
11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive, Portland, OR 97220
800-548-4667 503-240-3393 800-561-1271 FAX
I/ lir
CIE s
CONTECH
CONTRACT
DRAWING
12 - 144"0 SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
SAMPLE PROJECT
ANYTOWN, USA
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No.:
DATE:
1/10/2019
DESIGNED:
xxx
DRAWN:
DAH
CHECKED:
xxx
APPROVED:
xxx
SHEET NO.:
C3 OF
6 -CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/
C:\USERS\DH OP KIN
A
36"0 MAX., HS -25 ACCESS CASTING
WITH GRADE RINGS AS REQUIRED, TO
REINFORCING TABLE
C2
BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY
**BEARING
c
CMP
A
B 0
REINFORCING
PRESSURE
TEMPORARY COVER FOR
(AS SHOWN) OR RECESSED.
E
RISER
CONSTRUCTION LOADS
_
o
E
E-
PROTECTION
RIM/FINISHED
> a
OO
(PSF)
FINISHED SLAB
GRADE
>-
~
S VARIES
HEIGHT OF
COVER
;IIIi Ili GRADE
Ti=i
a a
24"
4'0
4'x4'
26"
#5 @ 10" OCEW
#5 @ 10" OCEW
2,540
1,900
I
-- a
II
4'-6"0
#5 @ 10" OCEW
2,260
IIIIIIIIILII Ii
a
�
��
30„
32„
#5 9" OCEW
1,670
_ =
I II
4'-6" x 4'-6"
@
I
ilI=
0 CMP
RISER
36"
50 38"
#5 @ 9" OCEW
2,060
= I'I'llll
GASKET MATERIAL
Q
5' x 5'
#5 @ 8" OCEW
1,500
i
SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT
d -,
SLAB FROM BEARING ON
H Cr)
42"
5'-6"0
44„
#5 @ 8" OCEW
1,490
CONSTRUCTION LOADS
RISER TO BE PROVIDED BY
-
5'-6" x 5'-6"
#5 @ 8" OCEW
1,370
a
FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE LOADS, AN EXTRA AMOUNT OF COMPACTED THE TOP OF THE PIPE. THE HEIGHT -OF -COVER SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTOR.
COVER MAY BE REQUIRED OVER
SHOWN IN THE TABLE BELOW.
0B .-
SECTION VIEW
11" TYP.
- Q
O
48"
6'0
6' x 6'
50"
#5 @ 7" OCEW
#5 @ 7" OCEW
1,210
1,270
THE USE OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NECESSITATES GREATER PROTECTION GRADE COVER MINIMUMS FOR NORMAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC.
FOR THE PIPE THAN FINISHED
** ASSUMED SOIL BEARING CAPACITY
AXLE LOADS
ACCESS CASTING NOT SUPPLIED BY CONTECH
PIPE SPAN,
INCHES
(kips)
cp,,
A
18-50 50-75 75-110
110-150
��OO A
ii -A I- B
MINIMUM COVER (FT)
J -P
12-42
48-72
78-120
2.0 3.0
3.0 2.5
3.0 3.5
3.0 3.5
4.0 3.0
4.0 4.0
�- #4 DIAGONAL TRIM
#4 DIAGONAL TRIM -t�vr BAR TYP. 4 PLACES),
(I
I
BAR (TYP. 4 PLACES), i� �\ SEE NOTE 7.
l
SEE NOTE 7. I -
--t ,it_ _1\ -Fr
-_t_ _ ___t_- 2"COVER
I I I -- ��,� -- I I I
I I I
I I I I //�� I I I
__IT____4y___ _ TI 7
J/ \L
---- tl
--- }
/- - _
I- It - - tl 1
\\\\� II
126-144
3.5 4.0
4.5 4.5
I /i'� �� (TYP)
/
MINIMUM COVER MAY VARY, DEPENDING ON LOCAL CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL COVER REQUIRED TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE PIPE. MINIMUM COVER IS MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE PIPE TO THE TOP OF THE MAINTAINED CONSTRUCTION ROADWAY SURFACE.
CONSTRUCTION LOADING DIAGRAM yr
r J
C
\� //
/� I
I-
7 ��Q
G m\
`L `C•
- -
\,I\ j
�� •� ,/
I >7
-11� - -
,/1 --
Ll
���
\\�,// %
\/
H, ----\-1--F
11,j'�
I
��
0'O tQ,
vj;
J 11
\��
I� 1,N\ /)
II z",
�11i-- �H
I
Q
NOT TO SCALE
I
\ //
/I OPENING IN
`II \• //
\y •
• /PROTECTION
OPENING IN __ _L �� _11_____
PROTECTION ----I-- ---_t_ -�----
SLAB FOR I I / ��
ACCESS I I �I, ��- I�
I /
INTERRUPTED BAR /----j�L_ �\�
SPECIFICATION FOR CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE -ALUMINIZED TYPE 2 STEEL REPLACEMENT, SEE / N� t- SLAB FOR
I ACESS
I
I
J
_-- _
-
r--- -t--,•
I
L_ ___1__
I
�� -\1_
_1�___ II
I I
_ _1�1
/ tl -1
I I
I I
J
I I I
INTERRUPTED BAR
REPLACEMENT,
SEE NOTE 6.
I
NOTE 6.
SCOPE HANDLING AND ASSEMBLY
//I
I
1 STANDARD STANDARD
THIS SPECIFICATION COVERS THE MANUFACTURE AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REINFORCING, REINFORCING, OB
INSTALLATION OF THE CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (CSP) DETAILED IN NATIONAL CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE ASSOCIATION (NCSPA) SEE TABLE SEE TABLE THE PROJECT PLANS.
INSTALLATION ROUND OPTION PLAN VIEW SQUARE OPTION PLAN VIEW
MATERIAL
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO STANDARD
THE ALUMINIZED TYPE 2 STEEL COILS SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY BRIDGES, SECTION 26, DIVISION II NOTES: 7. TRIM OPENING WITH DIAGONAL #4 BARS, EXTEND BARS A APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M274 OR ASTM A929. OR ASTM A798 AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROJECT PLANS MINIMUM OF 12" BEYOND OPENING, BEND BARS AS REQUIRED AND SPECIFICATIONS. IF THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES OR 1. DESIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO, 17th TO MAINTAIN BAR COVER.
PIPE CONFLICTS THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD DISCUSS AND RESOLVE EDITION AND ACI 350.
WITH THE SITE ENGINEER. 8. PROTECTION SLAB AND ALL MATERIALS TO BE PROVIDED AND THE CSP SHALL BE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2. DESIGN LOAD HS25. INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR.
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M36 OR ASTM A760. THE IT IS ALWAYS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PIPE SIZES, GAGES AND CORRUGATIONS SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON FOLLOW OSHA GUIDELINES FOR SAFE PRACTICES. 3. EARTH COVER = 1' MAX. 9. DETAIL DESIGN BY DELTA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND LAND THE PROJECT PLANS. SURVEYORS, ENDWELL, NY.
4. CONCRETE STRENGTH = 4,000 psi
ALL FABRICATION OF THE PRODUCT SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES. 5. REINFORCING STEEL = ASTM A615, GRADE 60.
6. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REINFORCING AROUND
OPENINGS EQUAL TO THE BARS INTERRUPTED, MANHOLE CAP DETAIL MATERIAL SPECIFICATION HALF EACH SIDE. ADDITIONAL BARS TO BE IN THE
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE SAME PLANE.
The design and Information shown on this drawing is prodded e to the project owner, engineer and contractor by
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No.:
DATE:
1/10/2019
v1o/2o19
g'eeedSol fo «CICo to h,.Netheth ��
drawing, nor any thereof, may be used, reproduced or
c N'IECI.I'Coateeh°E
—
i
12 — 144"Q� SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM -
----
part
modified in any manner without the prior written consent of >, t f
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
xallure to comply is done at the user's own sk and
expressly disclaims any Lability or responsibility for
TI LLC
� �
SAMPLE PROJECT
XXX
DAH
such usn
such use.
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which www.ContechES.com
CONTECH
ANYTOWN USA
xxx
XXX
the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered 11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive, Portland, OR 97220
a site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contecnimmediately forre-evaluation of thedesign. Contech
CONTRACT
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
SHEET NO.:
cepts noliamitimordesiglnsbaedonmissing, incomplete nrMARK 800-548-4667 503-240-3393 800-561-1271 FAX
DRAWING
C4 OF 6
inaccurate
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
BULKHEAD
a
-CMP SAMPLE SOLID - PERF.DWG 3/
%4' (#6) REBAR CAN BE CUT FLUSH
TO OUTSIDE OF RAIL
(BAR LENGTH = 163/4") OR BAR CAN
EXTEND BEYOND RAIL Y2"±
TYP
3/8"
12" TYP.
CENTER TO CENTER
RUNG SPACING
ELEVATION
m
0 03
SIDE
FABRICATION TOLERANCE: ±Y4"
FLAT BAR AND REBAR: MILL
TOLERANCE APPLIES
NOTES:
1. LADDERS CAN BE MADE IN STANDARD LENGTHS AND CUT TO FIT
2. ALL MATERIAL TO MEET ASTM A36
3. LADDER TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED PER ASTM A-123 AFTER
FABRICATION IS COMPLETE
STANDARD LADDER DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PART No. HALAGVL16
NOTE:
THIS DRAWING IS INTENDED TO APPLY TO LADDERS
INSTALLED IN RISERS HAVING A DIAMETER OF 36" OR LARGER
AND LOCATED ONE FOOT FROM THE BULKHEAD ONLY
PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 4
ATTACHMENT ANGLES (2 ON
EITHER SIDE OF LADDER RAIL)
TO CONNECT LADDER TO
RISER EXTENSION
7/" HOLE w/ %4" REBAR RUNG,
WELD REBAR TO RUNG ON
OUTSIDE OF STEEL RAIL
2Y2" x 3/g" FLAT BAR SIDE RAIL
RISER EXTENSION
F
L
1'-0"
STEEL PLATE
WELD OR BOLT TO
BULKHEAD (TYP.)
oQ
2 BULKHEAD
N
O
O
1' 6"
O
O
O
O
O
SIDE
RISER STUB
4"x4"x%6"
STEEL PLATE
RISER
RISER EXTENSION
4"x4"x%6"
STEEL PLATE (TYP.)
L1Y4" x 1Y4" xY4'
STEEL ANGLE
FULLY WELDED (TYP.)
OR BOLT
ALL STEEL PER ASTM A36
" IN FIELD WELD
OR BOLT LADDER
TO BULKHEAD
AND MANHOLE
RISER
RISER LADDER DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN
ELEVATION
RISER STUB
L 1Y4" x 1Y4" X Y4"
STEEL ANGLE
#4 REBAR
LADDER RUNGS
%" x 1 Y2" A36
FLAT SIDE RAIL,
TYP.
6" FROM TOP OF LADDER TO CENTER OF RUNG.
WHEN A RISER EXTENSION IS USED, CUT THE
SIDE RAILS SO RISER JOINT TO TOP OF SIDE
RAIL IS 3" AND TOP OF SIDE RAIL TO CENTER
OF RUNG IS 3".
C:\USERS\DH OP KIN
The design and information shown on this drawing is provided as aservice to the project owner, engineer and contractor by CotehE g' ee ed Sol to LLC ( Co to h ). Ne the th'
drawing, nor any part thereof, may be used, reproduced or modified in any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply is done at the user's own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for such use.
If discrepancies between the supplied information upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered as site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported to Contech immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, incomplete or inaccurate information supplied by others.
plARK
DATE
REVISION DESCRIPTION
BY
"TECH-
amememEDSCUITICINSLLC
www.ContechES.com
11815 NE Glenn Widing Drive, Portland, OR 97220
800-548-4667 503-240-3393
800-561-1271 FAX
Itinirifri TEAM
INEEENTICS SYSTEM
CONTECH
CONTRACT
DRAWING
12 - 144"O SOLID OR PERFORATED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM
SAMPLE PROJECT
ANYTOWN, USA
SITE DESIGNATION: SAMPLE TANK
PROJECT No.:
SEQ. No.:
DATE:
1/10/2019
DESIGNED:
xxx
DRAWN:
DAH
CHECKED:
xxx
APPROVED:
xxx
SHEET NO.:
C5 OF 6
Inlet
Filtration
GRATE
"ULTIMATE" BYPASS
FEATURES
GASKET
STAINLESS STEEL
SUPPORT BASKET
Fossil Rock TM
ABSORBENT POUCHES
FloGard® FILTER
-INSTALLED INTO CATCH BASIN-
LINER
SUPPORT
BASKET
CATCH BASIN
(FLAT GRATE STYLE)
DETAIL A
EXPLODED VIEW
NOTES:
Filter insert shall have a high flow bypass feature.
2. Filter support frame shall be constructed from stainless steel Type 304.
3. Filter medium shall be Fossil Rock TM, installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
4. Storage capacity reflects 80% of maximum solids collection prior to impeding filtering bypass.
U.S. PATENT # 6,00,023 & 6,877,029
FloGard®
Catch Basin Insert Filter
Grated Inlet Style
Oldcastle®
Stormwater Solutions
7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite 200 I Littleton, CO 180120 I Ph: 800.579.8819 I oldcastlestormwater.com THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY INJURIOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF SAID COMPANY. COPYRIGHT © 2010 OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
DRAWING NO.
F G P-0001
REV
G
Eco EC0-0142
JPR 7/13/16
DATE
JPR 11/3/06
SHEET 1 OF 2
O
O
9 0_
Ur
LL
U.S. PATENT # 6,00,023 & 6,877,029
"ULTIMATE" BYPASS FEATURE
(LOUVERS & OPENINGS)
SEE DETAIL C "ULTIMATE" BYPASS FEATURE
-
(LOUVERS & OPENINGS)
I I __
t
DEPTH
STANDARD = 20 INCHES
SHALLOW = 12 INCHES
*CUSTOM
DETAIL B
SECTION VIEW DETAIL C
FloGard® FILTER "ULTIMATE"
--,r
° °
-INSTALLED- BYPASS FEATURES
* MANY OTHER STANDARD & CUSTOM SIZES & DEPTHS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
SPECIFIER CHART
NO.
MODEL (Data
STANDARD & SHALLOW
DEPTH
in these columes is the same for
both STANDARD & SHALLOW versions)
STANDARD DEPTH
-20 Inches-
MODEL NO.
SHALLOW DEPTH
-12 Inches-
STANDARD
DEPTH
INLET ID
Inside
Dimension
(inch x inch)
GRATE OD
Outside
Dimension
(inch x inch)
TOTAL
BYPASS
CAPACITY
(cu. ft. / sec.)
SOLIDS
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(cu. ft.)
FILTERED
FLOW
(cu. ft. / sec.)
SHALLOW
DEPTH
SOLIDS
STORAGE
CAPACITY
(cu. ft.)
FILTERED
FLOW
(cu. ft. / sec.)
FGP-12F
12 X 12
12 X 14
2.8 0.3
0.4 FGP-12F8
.15
.25
FGP-16F
16 X 16
16 X 19
4.7 0.8
0.7 FGP-16F8
.45
.4
FGP-18F
18 X 18
18 X 20
4.7 0.8
0.7 FGP-18F8
.45
.4
FGP-1824F
16 X 22
18 X24
5.0 1.5
1.2 FGP-1824F8
.85
.7
FGP-1836F
18 X 36
18 X 40
6.9 2.3
1.6 FGP-1836F8
1.3 .9
FGP-2024F
18 X 22
20 X24
5.9 1.2
1.0 FGP-2024F8
.7
.55
FGP-21F
22 X 22
22 X 24
6.1 2.2
1.5 FGP-21F8
1.25 .85
FGP-24F
24 X 24
24 X 27
6.1 2.2
1.5 FGP-24F8
1.25 .85
FGP-2430F
24 X 30
26 X 30
7.0 2.8
1.8 FGP-2430F8
1.6 1.05
FGP-2436F
24 X 36
24 X 40
8.0 3.4
2.0 FGP-2436F8
1.95 1.15
FGP-2448F
24 X 48
26 X 48
9.3 4.4
2.4 FGP-2448F8
2.5 1.35
FGP-28F
28 X 28
32 X 32
6.3 2.2
1.5 FGP-28F8
1.25 .85
FGP-30F
30 X 30
30 X 34
8.1 3.6
2.0 FGP-30F8
2.05 1.15
FGP-36F
36 X 36
36 X 40
9.1 4.6
2.4 FGP-36F8
2.65 1.35
FGP-3648F
36 X 48
40 X 48
11.5 6.8
3.2 FGP-3648F8
3.9 1.85
FGP-48F
48 X 48
48 X 54
13.2 9.5
3.9 FGP-48F8
5.45 2.25
FGP-SD24F
24 X 24
28 X 28
6.1 2.2
1.5 FGP-SD24F8
1.25 .85
®.
''•'-•='y��"''�
v\
Fl o Gard ®
Basin a Catch in Insert �i ert Filter
Catch
Oldcastle®
Stormwater Solutions
7921 Southpark Plaza, Suite 200 I Littleton, CO 180120 I Ph: 800.579.8819 I oldcastlestormwater.com THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. IT IS SUBMITTED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY INJURIOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF SAID COMPANY. COPYRIGHT © 2010 OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Inlet
Filtration Grated Inlet Style
DRAWING NO.
FGP-0001
RD/
G
ECO ECO-0142
JPR 7/13/16
DATE
JPR 11/3/06
SHEET 2 OF 2
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix E: Overflow Storm Calculations
13IPage
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Existing 50-year/Existing B Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.999
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Existing Bellflower Center
DMA 1
1.0 347.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.1489
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8327
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8338
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.4274
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 18615.7395
0.8999
6.0 2.8338
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
o
u_
1.0 0.5
0.0 Hydrograph (Existing Bellflower Center: DMA 1)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Iflower Center
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Existing 50-year/Existing B Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.961
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Existing Bellflower Center
DMA 2
0.93 321.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.4306
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8525
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.8655
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.3859
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 16808.6283
0.8981
5.0 2.8655
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
o
u_
1.0 0.5
0.0 Hydrograph (Existing Bellflower Center: DMA 2)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Iflower Center
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Existing 50-year/Existing B Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Existing Bellflower Center
DMA 3
0.94 230.0
0.01 5.75
0.962
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in
Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft
5.75 3.4306
0.8525
0.8982
5.0 2.8965
2.8965
0.3903
17002.7724
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
o
u_
1.0 0.5
0.0 Hydrograph (Existing Bellflower Center: DMA 3)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Iflower Center
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/Existing 50-year/Existing B Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Existing Bellflower Center
DMA 4
0.52 264.0
0.01 5.75
0.949
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in
Peak Intensity (in/hr)
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu)
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft)
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft
5.75 3.4306
0.8525
0.8976
5.0 1.6012
1.6012
0.2137
9309.3789
Hydrograph (Existing Bellflower Center: DMA 4)
c 1.0
.-1° 0.8
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0 _
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
Iflower Center
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/50-year/Bellflower Conveni Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.879
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 1
0.68 298.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.4306
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8525
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.0861
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.2639
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 11494.9393
0.8943
5.0 2.0861
c
U
0 LL
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 1)
0.0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
rice Center - D
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/50-year/Bellflower Conveni Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.833
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 2
0.75 314.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.4306
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8525
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.2953
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.2798
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 12186.2082
0.8921
5.0 2.2953
c
U
0 LL
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 2)
0.0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
rice Center - D
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/50-year/Bellflower Conveni Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.862
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 3
0.85 346.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.1489
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8327
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 2.384
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.3251
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 14161.7631
0.8907
6.0 2.384
c
U
0 LL
2.5 2.0
1.5 1.0
0.5 Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 3)
0.0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
rice Center - D
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/50-year/Bellflower Conveni Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.929
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 4
0.68 412.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.1489
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8327
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.9169
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.275
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 11979.5024
0.8952
6.0 1.9169
o
u_
2.0 1.5
0.5 Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 4)
0.0 _
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
rice Center - D
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: K:/SND_LDEV/7-Eleven/_z LA/Bellflower & Ramona - 1046051 - 41978/Storm Water/HydroCalc/50-year/Bellflower Conveni Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
e
Input Parameters
Project Name
Subarea ID
Area (ac
Flow Path Length (ft)
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft;
50-yr Rainfall Depth (in)
Percent Impervious 0.772
Soil Type
Design Storm Frequency
Fire Factor
LID False
Bellflower Convenience Center
DMA 5
0.43 282.0
0.01 5.75
6 50-yr
0 Output Results
Modeled (50-yr) Rainfall Depth (in) 5.75
Peak Intensity (in/hr) 3.4306
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.8525
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd)
Time of Concentration (min)
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs)
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 1.3117
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac -ft) 0.1518
24 -Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu -ft) 6612.6712
0.8892
5.0 1.3117
o
0 u 0.6
Hydrograph (Bellflower Convenience Center: DMA 5)
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (minutes)
rice Center - D
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix F: Geotechnical Report
14IPage
Infiltration Rate Results
RESULTS OF INFILTRATION TESTS - BORING PERCOLATION TEST Project #
11221022
Date 6/8/2021
Project Name
Proposed Retail
Project Address
17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, CA
Test No:
IT -4
Total Depth (in.)
96 Test Size (in)
8 Depth To Water
>50'
Soil Classification
SM
Est Invert Depth (in)
84 Screen Top (in)
60 Reading
Elasped
Time(min.)
Incremental Time
(min.)
Initial Depth To
Water(in.)
Final Depth To
Water(in.)
Incremental Fall of
Water(in.)
Unfactored
Incremental
Percolation Rate
(in/hr)
Start
0 0.00
60.00 --
--
1 20.00
20.00 60.00
75.00 15.00
45.00 2
40.00 20.00
60.00 77.00
17.00 51.00
3 60.00
20.00 60.00
75.00 15.00
45.00 4
80.00 20.00
60.00 74.00
14.00 42.00
5 100.00
20.00 60.00
77.00 17.00
51.00 6
120.00
20.00 60.00
76.50 16.50
49.50 7
130.00
10.00 60.00
68.50 8.50
51.00 8
140.00
10.00 60.00
69.00 9.00
54.00 9
150.00
10.00 60.00
68.00 8.00
48.00 10
160.00
10.00 60.00
68.00 8.00
48.00 11
170.00
10.00 60.00
69.00 9.00
54.00 12
180.00
10.00 60.00
68.50 8.50
51.00 13
190.00
10.00 60.00
68.75 8.75
52.50 14
200.00
10.00 60.00
68.00 8.00
48.00 Avg. Unfactored Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
51.00 Recommended
Reduction Factor (RFt*RFv*RFs)
12.0 Factored
Infiltration Rate in Inches per Hour (in/hr)
4.25 w IT-4
:s. on n
Unfactored Infiltration F
n) (inches/our) c
D o 0 o C
v.v
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time (minutes)
UPDATED
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
17617 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT No. 112-21022
MAY 26, 2021
Prepared for:
MR. ERIC SILVERMAN
SBH REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
606 SOUTH OLIVE STREET, SUITE 2450
Los ANGELES, CA 90014
PREPARED BY:
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
1100 OLYMPIC DRIVE, SUITE 103
CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92881
(951) 273-1011
IKrazan.& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
May 26, 2021
Mr. Eric Silverman
SBH Real Estate Group, Inc.
606 South Olive Street, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, California 90014
RE: Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Proposed Retail Shopping Center
17617 Bellflower Boulevard
Bellflower, California
Dear Mr. Silverman:
KA Project No. 112-21022
We have completed an Updated Geotechnical Engineering Investigation dated April 19, 2021 for the above -referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report.
If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (951) 273-1011.
s�---4- Respectfully submitted,
oR0FESS/p `V KRAZAN & ASS ES INC.
avid R. Jarosz, II
Managing Engin
RGE No. 2698
DRJ:ht
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, CA 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KhiraZa1& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2
SITE LOCATION, SITE HISTORY AND SITE DESCRIPTION 2
GEOLOGIC SETTING 3
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES 3
SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 4
FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES 5
OTHER HAZARDS 5
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 5
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6
GROUNDWATER 7
SOIL CORROSIVITY 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
Administrative Summary 8
Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction 9
Seismic Considerations 9
Site Preparation 9
Engineered Fill 11
Drainage and Landscaping 11
Utility Trench Backfill 12
Foundations 12
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork 13
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls 13
R -Value Test Results and Pavement Design 14
Seismic Parameters 2019 CBC 15
Soil Cement Reactivity 16
Compacted Material Acceptance 16
Testing and Inspection 16
LIMITATIONS 16
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, CA 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
-�= azan& ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
VICINITY MAP
SITE PLAN
EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF REQUIRED INVESTIGATION MAP
HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER MAP
GEOLOGIC MAP
BORING LOGS
CONE PENETRATION TEST
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PERCOLATION TEST DATA
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, CA 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
]Kraza1 & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION
May 26, 2021 Project No. 112-21022
UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER
17617 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This updated report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Retail Shopping Center, to be located at the southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Ramona Street in Bellflower, California. This report supersedes the previous Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report issued on April 19, 2021. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, Engineered Fill, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior flatwork, retaining walls, excavation stability, soil cement reactivity, and pavement design.
A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendix A contains a description of the laboratory -testing phase of this study, along with the laboratory test results.
Appendices B and C contain specifications for earthwork and flexible pavements, respectively. If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to make geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements, and to provide criteria for site preparation and Engineered Fill construction.
Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated March 9, 2021 (KA Proposal No.
G21030CAC-R) and included the following:
• A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site.
• A field investigation consisting of drilling 10 borings to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 50 feet and conducting 4 percolation tests at depths of 5 to 8 feet for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1100 Olympic Drive, Suite 103 • Corona, CA 92881 • (951) 273-1011 • Fax: (951) 273-1003 11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 2
• Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. • Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and an engineering analysis to provide recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. • Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recommendations, and findings of our investigation.
Environmental services, such as a chemical analysis of soil and groundwater for possible environmental contaminates, were not in our scope of services.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
We understand that design of the proposed development is currently underway; structural load information and other final details pertaining to the structures are unavailable. On a preliminary basis, it is understood the development will include the construction of a new retail shopping center consisting of four retail/commercial buildings and trash enclosures. It is anticipated the structures will utilize conventional shallow foundations and concrete slab -on -grade construction. Footing loads are anticipated to be light to moderate. On -site paved areas, adjacent street improvements, and landscaping are also associated with the development.
In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the fmal design criteria, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable.
SITE LOCATION, SITE HISTORY AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The property site is irregular in shape and encompasses approximately 3%2 acres. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Bellflower Boulevard and Ramona Street in Bellflower, California.
The site is surrounded by residential houses and vacant land.
Site history was obtained by reviewing historical aerial photographs taken in 1952, 1963, 1972, 1994, 2004, 2010, 2016, 2017, and 2020. Review of the 1952 aerial photograph indicates that the project site consisted of buildings, a warehouse, and parking lots. The site was bordered by Ramona Street to the north, Bellflower Boulevard to the east, Cedar Street to the south, and residential developments to the west.
Review of the 1963 aerial photograph indicates that the project site conditions appeared to be relatively similar to that noted in the 1952 aerial photograph. Additional buildings were located within the western region of the site.
Review of the 1972 aerial photograph indicates that the project site conditions appeared to be relatively similar to that noted in the 1963 aerial photograph. A few of the buildings in the northern region of the site were replaced with new buildings.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 3
Review of the 1994 through 2016 aerial photographs indicate that the project site conditions appeared to be relatively similar to that noted in the 1972 aerial photograph.
Review of the 2017 and 2020 aerial photographs indicate that the developments at the project site had been demolished and the site had been cleared. Power poles were located within the site.
Presently, the site is predominately vacant. The site is surrounded by commercial buildings to the north and east, a mobile home park and commercial buildings to the south, and a residential development and auto service center to the west. The site is bordered by metal fencing along northern, eastern, and southern edges. The western edge of the site is bordered by a combination of metal and chain link fencing, a masonry wall, and a building. Power poles and overhead electrical lines trend north -south through the middle of the site, along the eastern and southern edges of the site, and along a portion of the western edge of the site. Buried utility lines associated with the existing, previous, and surrounding developments may be located within or along the edges of the site. The surface soils have a loose consistency. The site is relatively level with no major changes in grade.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The subject site is located within the southwest portion of the Central Basin of the Los Angeles Coastal Plain, within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Los Angeles Coastal Plain is situated between the Santa Monica Mountains to the northwest, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northeast, the Santa Ana Mountains to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. The Los Angeles Basin is dominated by northwest -trending faults and adjacent anticlinal uplifts. The intervening deep synclinal troughs are filled with poorly consolidated Upper Pleistocene and unconsolidated Holocene sediments. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary.
The near -surface deposits in the vicinity of the subject site are indicated to be comprised of Holocene alluvial soft sand, silt, silty sand, and clay of distal fan deposits associated with active local alluvial systems.
The site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California. The nearest significant active fault is the Puente Hills Fault Zone, which is approximately 7.4 mile from the site. The Anaheim Fault Zone is located approximately 7.6 miles from the site. The Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is located approximately 8.6 miles from the site. The area in consideration shows no mapped faults on -site according to maps prepared by the California Geologic Survey and published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). No evidence of surface faulting was observed on the property during our reconnaissance.
SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES
In 1990, the California State Legislature passed the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act to protect public safety from the effects of strong shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and other hazards caused by earthquakes. The Act requires that the State Geologist delineate various seismic hazards zones on Seismic Hazards Zones Maps. Specifically, the maps identify areas where soil liquefaction and Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
l 1221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 4
earthquake -induced landslides are most likely to occur. A site -specific geotechnical evaluation is required prior to permitting most urban developments within the mapped zones. The Act also requires sellers of real property within the zones to disclose this fact to potential buyers. The subject site is located on the State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Los Alamitos Quadrangle, dated March 25, 1999. The subject site is located in an area designated by the State of California as a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.
SEISMICITY AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Seismicity is a general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density reflect relative degrees of regional stress through time, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic activity; therefore, the degree of seismic risk must be determined or estimated by the seismic record in any given region. The Puente Hills, Anaheim, and Newport -Inglewood Faults are located approximately 7.4, 7.6, and 8.6 miles from the subject site, respectively.
Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated:
1) Soil type
2) Groundwater depth
3) Relative density
4) Initial confining pressure
5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking
The predominant soils within the project site consist of silty sand, sand, silty sand/sandy silt, clayey sand, sandy clay and sandy silt. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 35 feet below site grades at Boring No. 1 during our site investigation. Historic groundwater information indicates groundwater exists at depths on the order of 25 to 30 feet below site grades.
The potential for soil liquefaction during a seismic event was evaluated using the LIQUEFYPRO computer program (version 5.9d) developed by CivilTech Software. For the analysis, a maximum earthquake magnitude of 7.46 was used. A peak horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.74g was considered conservative and appropriate for the liquefaction analysis. An estimated high groundwater depth of 25 feet was used for our analysis. The computer analysis indicates that soils above a depth of 25 feet are non -liquefiable due to the absence of groundwater. The soils below a depth of 25 feet have a slight to moderate potential for liquefaction under seismic shaking.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 5
The analysis indicates that the estimated total seismic induced settlement is less than 1% inches.
Differential settlement caused by a seismic event is estimated to be less than 1 inch. The anticipated differential settlement is estimated over a horizontal distance of 100 feet.
FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES
The Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act went into effect in March, 1973. Since that time, the Act has been amended 11 times (Hart, 2007). The purpose of the Act, as provided in California Geologic Survey (CGS) Special Publication 42 (SP 42), is to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and to mitigate thereby the hazard of fault -rupture".
The Act was renamed the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1994, and at that time, the originally designated "Special Studies Zones" was renamed the "Earthquake Fault Zones." The subject site is located on the State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Los Alamitos Quadrangle. The site is not within a Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone. The Puente Hills, Anaheim, and Newport -Inglewood Faults are located approximately 7.4, 7.6, and 8.6 miles from the subject site, respectively.
OTHER HAZARDS
Rockfall, Landslide, Slope Instability, Debris Flow: The subject site is relatively flat and level. It is our understanding that there are no significant slopes proposed as part of the proposed development.
Provided the recommendations presented in this report are implemented into the design and construction of the anticipated development, rockfalls, landslides, slope instability, and debris flows are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site.
Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated within enclosed bodies of water. The site is not located in close proximity to any lakes or reservoirs. As such, seiches are not anticipated to pose a hazard to the subject site.
Hydroconsolidation: The near surface soils encountered at the subject site were found to be medium dense to very dense. Provided remedial grading recommendations presented in this report are incorporated in the design and construction, hydroconsolidation is not anticipated to be a significant concern for the subject site.
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling 10 borings and 1 cone penetration test to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 50 feet below existing site grade, using a truck -mounted drill rig. A bulk subgrade sample was obtained from the site for laboratory R -value testing. In addition, 4 percolation tests were performed within the site at depths of 5 to 8 feet to evaluate the soils absorption characteristics. The approximate boring, bulk sample, and percolation locations are shown on the site plan. During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsoils. Soil samples Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 6
were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation potential, R -value, and moisture - density relationships of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the soil -cement reactivity. Details of the laboratory test program and results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A.
SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the upper soils predominately consisted of approximately 6 to 12 inches of loose silty sand. These soils are disturbed, have moderate strength characteristics, and are slightly compressible when saturated.
Below the loose surface soils, loose to dense silty sand, clayey sand, sand, silty sand/sandy silt, or sandy silt, and firm sandy clay were encountered. These soils contained varying amounts of gravel. Field and laboratory tests suggest that these soils are moderately strong and slightly compressible. Penetration resistance ranged from 9 to 56 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 91 to 103 pcf. Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 1 and 11/2 percent under a 2 ksf load when saturated.
Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 28 and 29 degrees. These soils extended to the depths of the borings.
For additional information about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of borings in Appendix A.
PERCOLATION TESTING
As requested, four percolation tests were performed within the site to evaluate the soils absorption characteristics. The percolation tests were performed at a depth of 5 to 8 feet below existing site grade.
The borings drilled at the site indicated the subsurface soil conditions consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand, sand, and silty sand/sandy silt.
Infiltration rates were determined using the results of open borehole infiltration testing performed at the subject site. The infiltration test results are shown in the following table. Detailed results of the percolation test and resulting infiltration rates are attached in tabular format.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 7
Test No.
Depth (feet)
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Soil Type
1 5
1.29 Silty Sand (SM)
2 8
4.08 Silty Sand (SM)
3 5
1.65 Silty Sand (SM)
4 8
5.61 Silty Sand (SM)
The soil infiltration rates are based on tests conducted with clean water. A factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the infiltration system to compensate for these factors as determined appropriate by the designer. In addition, routine maintenance consisting of clearing the system of clogged soils and debris should be expected.
GROUNDWATER
Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following the drilling operations. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 35 feet below site grades during the site visit to the subject site. Based on a review of the Seismic Hazard Evaluation Report for the Los Alamitos Quadrangle, historic high groundwater depths for the vicinity of the subject site are estimated to be at depths on the order of 25 to 30 feet below ground surface.
It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, water level observations at the time of the field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report.
SOIL CORROSIVITY
Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The tests consisted of minimum resistivity, sulfate content and chloride content, and the results of the tests are included as follows:
Parameter
Results
Test Method
Sulfate
246 ppm
CA 417
Min
Resistivity
1,100 ohm -cm
CA 643
Chloride
52 ppm
CA 422
pH Value
9.2 EPA 9045C
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 8
Administrative Summary
In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the loose surface soils, previous, existing, and surrounding developments, appear to be conducive to the development of the project. The surface soils have a loose consistency. These soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics and are highly compressible when saturated. Accordingly, it is recommended that the surface soils be recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation.
It is the finding of this firm that the proposed project will be safe from geotechnical hazards (i.e. landslide, settlement or slippage) and will not adversely affect adjacent properties, in compliance with Section 111 of the Los Angeles County Building Code, provided our recommendations are incorporated into the design and properly implemented during construction.
Fill material was not encountered in our borings. However, fill may be located between or beyond our borings. It is anticipated fill soils will consist of silty sands. The thickness and extent of fill material was determined based on limited test borings and visual observation. Verification of the extent of fill should be determined during site grading. It is recommended that fill soils that have not been properly compacted and certified be excavated and recompacted. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the excavation should be observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify no additional removal is required.
Presently, the site is predominately vacant. Power poles and overhead electrical lines trend north -south through the middle of the site. The site was previously developed with several buildings. Associated with these developments may be buried structures, such as utility lines and irrigation lines that may extend into the project site. Demolition activities should include proper removal of any buried structures or loosely backfilled excavations encountered. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill. It is suspected that demolition activities of the existing structures will disturb the upper soils. After demolition activities, it is recommended that these disturbed soils be removed and/or recompacted. This compaction effort should stabilize the upper soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation.
Following stripping, fill removal operations and demolition activities, the exposed subgrade in building, exterior flatwork and pavement areas should be excavated to a depth of at least 24 inches from existing site grade or 12 inches below planned footing elevation, whichever is deeper, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture -conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Limits of recompaction should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond building areas and 2 feet beyond the edge of pavements or sidewalks. Prior to backfilling, the exposed subgrade should be proof -rolled and observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify stability. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation.
Sandy and gravelly soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavation. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy and gravelly soils.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 9
After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. The proposed structure footings may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for dead -plus -live loads. Footings should have a minimum embedment of 18 inches.
Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction
Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the construction of foundations and pavements for the project.
Information obtained from the California Seismic Hazard Report for the Los Alamitos Quadrangle indicates that historic groundwater has existed at depths of 25 to 30 feet below site grades.
If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include:
discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved lime or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.
Seismic Considerations
Ground Shaking
Although ground rupture is not considered to be a major concern at the subject site, the site will likely be subject to at least one moderate to severe earthquake and associated seismic shaking during its lifetime, as well as periodic slight to moderate earthquakes. Some degree of structural damage due to stronger seismic shaking should be expected at the site, but the risk can be reduced through adherence to seismic design codes.
Seismic Induced Settlement
One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, any loose fill materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. However, this hazard can be mitigated by following the design and construction recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report.
Site Preparation
General site clearing should include removal of concrete; vegetation and existing utilities; and structures; including foundations; basement walls and floors; existing stockpiled soil; trees and associated root systems; rubble; rubbish; and any loose and/or saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed.
Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non-structural areas.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 10
Fill material was not encountered in our borings. However, fill may be located between or beyond our borings. It is anticipated fill soils will consist of silty sands. The thickness and extent of fill material was determined based on limited test borings and visual observation. Verification of the extent of fill should be determined during site grading. It is recommended that fill soils that have not been properly compacted and certified be excavated and recompacted. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the excavation should be observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify no additional removal is required.
Presently, the site is predominately vacant. Power poles and overhead electrical lines trend north -south through the middle of the site. The site was previously developed with several buildings. Associated with these developments may be buried structures, such as utility lines, irrigation lines, septic systems, and water wells. Demolition activities should include proper removal of any buried structures. Any buried structures or loosely backfilled excavations encountered during construction should be properly removed and the resulting excavations backfilled. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below planned fmish subgrade level should be cleaned to firm undisturbed soil, and backfilled with Engineered Fill. In general, any septic tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be entirely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the Soils Engineer. Water wells should be abandoned in accordance with county standards. Any other buried structures should be removed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. Resulting excavations should be backfilled with Engineered Fill.
Following stripping, fill removal, tree or root removal, and demolition activities, the exposed subgrade within proposed building, exterior flatwork, and pavement areas should be excavated to a depth of at least 24 inches from existing site grade or 12 inches below planned footing elevation, whichever is deeper, worked until uniform and free from large clods, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
Limits of recompaction should extend 5 feet beyond structural elements and 2 feet beyond flatwork and pavements. Prior to backfilling, the bottom of the excavation should be proof -rolled and observed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. to verify stability. Soft or pliant areas should be excavated to firm native ground.
It is recommended that any uncertified fill material encountered within pavement areas be removed and/or recompacted. The fill materials should be moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. As an alternative, the Owner may elect not to recompact the existing fill within paved areas. However, the Owner should be aware that the paved areas may settle which may require annual maintenance. At a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil be moisture -conditioned to a minimum of 2 percent above optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 11
The upper soils, during wet winter months, become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be performed.
A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction of the material and the stability of the material. The Soils Engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations of this report are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to recommendations set forth in this section and the Engineered Fill section.
Engineered Fill
The on -site, native soils are predominately silty sands, sands, silty sand/sandy silts, and sandy silts.
These soils contained varying amounts of gravel. These soils will be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics, debris, and fragments larger than 4 inches in maximum dimension.
The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fi11 are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the Contractor, since he has complete control of the project site at that time.
Imported Fill material should be predominately non -expansive granular material with a plasticity index less than 10 and an expansion index less than 15. Imported Fill should be free from rocks and clods greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Imported Fill material should be submitted to the Soils Engineer for approval at least 48 hours prior to delivery at the site.
Fill soils should be placed in lifts approximately 6 inches thick, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and compacted to achieve at least 90 percent maximum density as based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable.
Drainage and Landscaping
The ground surface should slope away from building pad and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. In accordance with Section 1804 of the 2019 California Building Code, it is recommended that the ground surface adjacent to foundations be sloped a minimum of 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet away from structures, or to an approved alternative means of drainage conveyance. Swales used for conveyance of drainage and located within 10 feet of foundations should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent. Impervious surfaces, such as pavement and Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1122 l 022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 12
exterior concrete flatwork, within 10 feet of building foundations should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent away from the structure. Drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off -site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards by a Contractor experienced in such work.
The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the Contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be reduced and cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation.
Sandy and gravelly soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavation. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy and gravelly soils.
Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Utility trench backfill placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with pipe manufacturer's recommendations.
The Contractor is responsible for removing all water sensitive soil from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The Contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction.
Foundations
After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. The proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on a minimum of 12 inches of Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures:
Load
Allowable Loading
Dead Load Only
1,875 psf
Dead -Plus -Live Load
2,500 psf
Total Load, including wind or seismic loads
3,200 psf
The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches, regardless of load.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 13
The total settlement associated with static loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch. Differential settlement should be less than %z inch across 30 feet. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post -construction soil movement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. Based on the soil liquefaction analysis performed within the site, the estimated total seismic -induced settlement is less than 1'h inches. Differential settlement caused by a seismic event is estimated to be less than 1 inch. The anticipated differential settlement is estimated over a horizontal distance of 100 feet.
Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.35 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 325 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A 1/3 increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic loads.
Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork
In areas where moisture -sensitive floor coverings will be included or where moisture -sensitive materials will be stored, concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills.
Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the slab -on -grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To reduce moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to reduce the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structure and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure.
Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over -irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture.
Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls
Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 40 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or are fully constrained against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 60 pounds per square foot per foot of depth.
Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non -expansive backfill material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1 Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 14
(horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumulate behind the retaining walls; or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations, or roadways.
During grading and backfill operations adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a lateral distance of 5 feet from the wall, or within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever is greater, to avoid developing excessive lateral pressures. Within this zone, only hand -operated equipment ("whackers," vibratory plates, or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact the backfill soils.
R -Value Test Results and Pavement Design
One R -value sample was obtained from the project site at the location shown on the attached site plan.
The sample was tested in accordance with the State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 301. The results of the test are as follows:
Sample
Depth
Description
R -Value at Equilibrium
1 12-24"
Silty Sand (SM)
33 The test results are moderate and indicate fair subgrade support characteristics under dynamic traffic loads. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices.
Traffic Index
Asphaltic Concrete
Class II Aggregate Base*
Compacted Subgrade**
4.0 2.0"
5.0"
12.0"
4.5 2.5"
5.0"
12.0"
5.0 2.5"
6.0"
12.0"
5.5 3.0"
6.0"
12.0"
6.0 3.0"
8.0"
12.0"
6.5 3.5"
8.0"
12.0"
7.0 4.0"
8.5"
12.0"
7.5 4.0"
10.0"
12.0"
* 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL 216 ** 90% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL 216 If traffic indices are not available, an estimated (typical value) index of 4.5 may be used for light automobile traffic, and an index of 7.0 may be used for light truck traffic.
The following recommendations are for light -duty and heavy-duty Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 15
PORTLAND CEMENT PAVEMENT
LIGHT DUTY
Traffic Index
Portland Cement Concrete***
Class II Aggregate Base*
Compacted Subgrade**
4.5 5.0"
6.0"
12.0"
HEAVY DUTY
Traffic Index
Portland Cement Concrete***
Class H Aggregate Base*
Compacted Subgrade**
7.0 6.5"
6.0"
12.0"
* 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL 216 ** 90% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL 216 ***Minimum compressive strength of 3000 psi
It is recommended that any uncertified fill material encountered within pavement areas be removed and/or recompacted. The fill materials should be moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. As an alternative, the Owner may elect not to recompact the existing fill within paved areas. However, the Owner should be aware that the paved areas may settle which may require annual maintenance. At a minimum, it is recommended that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil be moisture -conditioned as necessary and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
Seismic Parameters — 2019 California Building Code
The Site Class per Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC) and ASCE 7-16, Chapter 20 is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a Site Class D is most consistent with the subject site soil conditions. For seismic design of the structures based on the seismic provisions of the 2019 CBC, we recommend the following parameters:
Seismic Item
Value
CBC Reference
Site Class
D
Section 1613.2.2
Site Coefficient Fa
1.000
Table 1613.2.3 (1)
SS
1.576
Section 1613.2.1
SMs
1.576
Section 1613.2.3
SDS
1.050
Section 1613.2.4
Site Coefficient F,,
1.736
Table 1613.2.3 (2)
S1
0.564
Section 1613.2.1
SM1
0.979
Section 1613.2.3
SD1
0.653
Section 1613.2.4
Ts
0.622
Section 1613.2
* Based on Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) Design Procedure being used.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
l 1221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 16
Soil Cement Reactivity
Excessive sulfate in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete (or stucco) and the soil. HUD/FHA and CBC have developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water.
Soil samples were obtained from the site and tested in accordance with State of California Materials Manual Test Designation 417. The sulfate concentrations detected in these soil samples were greater than 150 ppm (246 ppm) and exceed the maximum allowable values established by HUD/FHA and CBC. It is recommended that a Type II cement be used within the concrete to compensate for sulfate reactivity with the cement.
Compacted Material Acceptance
Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the stability of that material. The Soils Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be unstable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the required percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted with an in situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture. This type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to future settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded.
Testing and Inspection
A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork.
This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.
LIMITATIONS
Soils Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate and most current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements in the field of Soils Engineering, physical changes in the site, either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the soils report is completed may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 17
Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 2 years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report.
Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the Soils Engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations may be made.
The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The Soils Engineer should be notified of any changes so the recommendations may be reviewed and re-evaluated.
This report is a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment.
The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
1122]022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
KA No. 112-21022
Page No. 18
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (951) 273-1011.
Respectfully submitted,
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
cOFESSIO
MKW/DRJ:ht
Madison K. Weber, P.E.
Project Engineer
RCE No. 81935
David R. Jarosz
Managing En
RGE No. 2698
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Updated Report (Retail Shopping Center)
ti
£tt 5..i PI u
•
Sr 'It St
0 aytait Patk
Iron Wood
Nine Gott
Course
O.
0 Cerritos
College
•
C
k
Artesia
W
N
a
E
VICINITY MAP
Scale:
Not to Scale
Date:
A,ri12021
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER
BELLFLOWER BLVD AND
RAMONA STREET
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
Drawn by:
MW
Approved by:
DJ
Project No.
112-21022
Figure No.
1 era �i� i Krazan
GEO E HNICAL ENGINEERING
• APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
A APPROXIMATE PERCOLATION/INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION
0 APPROXIMATE BULK SAMPLE LOCATION
❑ APPROXIMATE CPT LOCATION
E
SITE MAP
Scale:
Not to Scale
Date:
May 2021
��
-
_�
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER
BELLFLOWER BLVD AND
RAMONA STREET
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
Drawn
Approved by:
Project No.
112-21022
Figure No.
2 �.�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Has
MAP EXPLANATION
ALaUtnTFRIOLO EARTHGUAJCE. FAULT ZONES
EaAlgiseas Faulk Zones
Zone taw tones are dermalla bf staeghNlne segments; the beunaaves acme be sone eiSCOmgerlang aides Taupe Let
uaataste a paten t to arel n structures trots Palace taut Mg Or 218 deep sate that Evoldance as dem:noed t, P1hac Resources Cone Section 20 I.E.a)tioind be Malted.
Aortae Faun Trae.e
Fe.4a orCSMerea lo neve Seen salve dakn Habce-,eltne end to nave potential Tor sueare =Me: Saaa Line is Batt at
Rea Alsace Accurate Located; tang Dash V; 4 Met or boa Line in Purple seen Agorost!alott Loc Moo: Snarl Dash Mrs ask or Sons Lace M orange mere interred; Oozed Lr,e Y, State or Zond Line m Rose where Denseeee; Oueri r?S narabs aaaakr e: Hhcertaasrl'.
EAcience & nlsaatic o:3etnmca7e by year et- ter2tWeee-
as^ led event Or Toe dSpb7eMert titdSea aA saint (nett. 1�
(�
("1
dEla WC HAZARD ZONES
Uquataotloa, Zones
rAvre�.!a.s Where 1`1.1aricsh act -unwire of asuefacfan. or icoaI geabgkal. ;toteCFJ` m and ground Water CM@t1GIS 1n60nr a Wahl 04 Tor permanentgrouna alspacemerls such that ln.0Nton es defined let F1btk Resass:es Code 07700 75030, smug be muted
Eesl0WaSe- n0uoed LaMoeae Zones
Areas Wile prestos ocamr,Ce of ardaA7e movement, or #ocel 0po.Taph 7, onto -ace 1, ott[Mket and sues .dace water t andttms Maronea potntla'br nem, anent ground alotacemcnu such woe 0Yt tzeste as acmes n Put#k 000osemes Code Secaen 26931c) would berequaed.
Source: State of California Seismic Hazards Map, Los Alamitos Quadrangle w
N
$
E
EARTHQUAKE ZONES OF
REQUIRED INVESTIGATION
MAP
Scale:
Not to Scale
Date:
April 2021
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER
BELLFLOWER BLVD AND
RAMONA STREET
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
Drawn by:
MW
Approved by:
DJ
Project No.
112-21022
Figure No.
3 IKr
azan
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
•
36 30 e
SUBJECT SITE
•
•
•
•
•
•l
•
• Borehole Site
• 4R
•
•
•
•'
f--- Jp - Depth to ground water in feet
Source: State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Report, Bellflower Quadrangle 4 •
•
•
w
E
HISTORICAL
GROUNDWATER
Scale:
Not to Scale
Date:
April 2021
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER
BELLFLOWER BLVD AND
RAMONA STREET
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
Drawn by:
MW
Approved by:
DJ
Project No.
112-21022
Figure No.
4 m —
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS
QUATERNARY DEPOSITS
8e Extensive marine and nonmerine sand deposits,
generally near the coast or desert playas
0 Alluvium, lake, playaand terrace deposits;
Lineansolideted and semi-consotrdated
tr r. i Selected large landslides
Glacial till end moraines. Found at high elevations mostly in rhot Sierra Nevada and Klamath Hounta st
goal Older alluvium, lake playa and terrace deposits
ORc] Pleistocene andlor Miocene sandstone, shale, and
gravels deposits massy loosely consolidated
ago
QUATERNARY VOLCANIC ROCKS
Recant (Hclacene) volcanic tow rooks, minor pyroUastic
deposes
Recent (Holocene) pyroclastic and vocanic muditoa
deposits
Quaternary volcanic Prow rocks, minor pyraclast!c
deposits
Quaternary pyracleetic and volcanic mudnew dapasils
SYMBOL EXPLANATION
Contact between gealog t. units - approximately mooted
e l a
Faun troves solid where well located dashed where
approximately located or inferred dotted where conceated and queried where ce ntinuahon or existence a uncertain Ball and bar on doantnrown rode (relative pi apeerent) Ar Oera mdicete direction of lateral movement lreiatrve orappa*ent)
"V`..V TTTT '0 •I' 11, -
Thrust t;tvtt rbarhs on upper plate`
Regionsstake and die of strattieo rocks
Regional str,re and dip al scathed rocks toverturnedt
Antrcknot told
Synclinal veld
tdanoUnal raid
Source: Department of Conservation: Geologic Map of California, 2010
GEOLOGIC MAP
Scale:
Not to Scale
Date:
A nri12021
PROPOSED RETAIL SHOPPING
CENTER
BELLFLOWER BLVD AND
RAMONA STREET
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA
Drawn by:
MW
Approved by:
DJ
Project No.
112-21022
Figure No.
5 l(re
12111
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Appendix A
Page A.1
APPENDIX A
FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS
Field Investigation
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploratory program. Ten 5%2 -inch diameter exploratory borings and one cone penetration test (CPT) were advanced. The boring and CPT locations are shown on the site plan.
The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and, with supplementary laboratory test data, are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
Modified standard penetration tests and standard penetration tests were performed at selected depths.
These tests represent the resistance to driving a 2'h -inch and 11/2 -inch diameter split barrel sampler, respectively. The driving energy was provided by a hammer weighing 140 pounds falling 30 inches.
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained while performing this test. Bag samples of the disturbed soil were obtained from the auger cuttings. The modified standard penetration tests are identified in the sample type on the boring logs with a full shaded in block. The standard penetration tests are identified in the sample type on the boring logs with half of the block shaded. All samples were returned to our Corona laboratory for evaluation.
Laboratory Investigation
The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the foundation soil underlying the site. Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered.
In -situ moisture content, dry density, consolidation, direct shear, and sieve analysis tests were completed for the undisturbed samples representative of the subsurface material. R -value tests were completed for select bag samples obtained from the auger cuttings. These tests, supplemented by visual observation, comprised the basis for our evaluation of the site material.
The logs of the exploratory borings and laboratory determinations are presented in this Appendix.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE -GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)
GRAVELS
kb ��:
!��!
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
More than 50%
of coarse
°c
p.°,
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
fraction larger
Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)
than No. 4
sieve size
�''�
101;
;
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures
rO�� �
.:31'.. mixtures
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay
Clean
Sands (Less than 5% fines)
SANDS
:; Sw
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
50% or more
of coarse
SP
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
little or no fines
fraction smaller
Sands
with fines (More than 12% fines)
than No. 4
sieve size
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures
fSC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures
(5D% or more
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
less than
50%
ML
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock
flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey
silts with slight plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
silty clays, lean clays
-_
=
CL
Organic silts and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
50%
or greater
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
elastic silts
�//
% /
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat
clays
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity, organic silts
HIGHLY
ORGANIC
SOILS
'--I'
i, o
,,,,
PT
Peat and other highly organic soils
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
Description Blows per Foot
Granular Soils
Very Loose
65 Cohesive Soils
Very Soft
40 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
Grain Type
Standard Sieve Size
Grain Size in
Millimeters
Boulders
Above 12 inches
Above 305
Cobbles
12 to 13 inches
305 to 76.2
Gravel
Coarse -grained
Fine-grained
3 inches to No. 4
3 to 3/ inches
% inches to No. 4
76.2 to 4.76
76.2 to 19.1
19.1 to 4.76
Sand
Coarse -grained
Medium -grained
Fine-grained
No. 4 to No. 200
No. 4 to No. 10
No. 10 to No. 40
No. 40 to No. 200
4.76 to 0.074
4.76 to 2.00
2.00 to 0.042
0.042 to 0.074
Silt and Clay
Below No. 200
Below 0.074
PLASTICITY CHART
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) (%)
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 CH
PI
A LINE
= 0.73(LL-20)
CL
MH&OH
a
a
ML&OL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
Log of Boring B1
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center
Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc.
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Depth to Water> 35 Feet
Initial: 35 Feet
Project No: 112-21022
Figure No.: A-1
Logged By: Angel Menchaca
At Completion: 35 Feet
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
a>
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
2 4—
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, coarse- to fine-grained with
GRAVEL; brown, dry
Medium dense below 12 inches
•
•
!
8 ''° 4'
a'
SAND (SP)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, damp
92.2 2.9
16 ■
10-,
12 ,ti
14—y
'.
�'
J
V
Y
r
SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT (SM/ML)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, moist
99.2 21.8
A
14 ■
-%
16—j.
18—
rv.
''
r,.• .r
l SILTY SAND (SM)
` Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, moist
,
w
14.9 ■
14 •
20 -
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 5'/z Inches
Elevation: 50 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 3
Log of Boring B1
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-1
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> 35 Feet Initial: 35 Feet At Completion: 35 Feet
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (°/0)
Blows/ft.
22 24
/:
SANDY CLAY (CL)
Stiff, fine- to coarse -grained; brown,
moist
34.4 9
■
26 28-
SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT (SM/ML)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, moist
25.4 11
•
30 32
34 CLAYEY SAND (SC)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, moist
19.0 25
■
36 38
SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT (SM/ML)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse grained;
brown, moist
Saturated below 35 feet
26.8 ■
20 •
40 Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 50 Feet
Sheet: 2 of 3
Log of Boring B1
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-1
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> 35 Feet Initial: 35 Feet At Completion: 35 Feet
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (`)/0)
a>
Blows/ft.
_
42—��.
44-
-
46-
-
48 50
I
•
r
'
'
.
,
r
i
SILTY SAND (SM)
Medium dense, fine- to coarse -grained;
brown, saturated
Dense below 47 feet
27.5 18
■
25.5 30
■
22.7 ■
56 ■
-
52-
_
54—
_
-
56—
58-
_
-
60 -
End of Borehole
Water encountered at 35 feet
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 5'1A Inches
Elevation: 50 Feet
Sheet: 3 of 3
Log of Boring B2
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center
Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc.
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Depth to Water> Not Encountered
Initial: N/A
Project No: 112-21022
Figure No.: A-2
Logged By: Angel Menchaca
At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
0 cn
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
I —
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
-f
_ti
-\
4—,"
-
6—r
8 10
12 14—
16-`
18—;.
-(
-'
20-''
/'ti
�r.
.;fr'-
l
*.,,
e
..
'
. .
IV.
'l
/
r
r
Z
11/.
''f
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 10 feet
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
A
•
92.1 8.4
Al
15 ■
96.5 8.8.
23 ■
5.8 23
■
33.9 14
•
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 20 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B3
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center
Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc.
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Depth to Water> Not Encountered
Initial: N/A
Project No: 112-21022
Figure No.: A-3
Logged By: Angel Menchaca
At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
CD
-o'
0 Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
a>
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
_'`
_^•
_
2—
4—eer"
6-
8-1^
10 l
^1
;
z,
-
'^
;'^'
•
,
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 12 inches
•
99.0 17.3.
16 ■
91.0 6.0
.
21 ■
-
12—
,
14-
16-
18-
-
-
20 —
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 5% Inches
Elevation: 10 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B4
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-4
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
0 Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
(1)
Blows/ft.
Ground Surface
2—
4 6-1
8 10
U
f
'
",
.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 9 feet
92.1 22.1
A
11 ■
92.7 7.8
.
21 ■
12-
14-
16-
18-
-
-
20 -
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 10 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B5
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-5
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
a)
Blows/ft.
0_,/,".,'
Ground Surface
2 4
6-/
_/
8-
10—..
12—
14 16
18 -',.'1'.'
-`°`'\''
1 20
%»
f ,�
i!/.
fv
. .ti
/
,
� j+/.
5v;,
,
: .:,1
f.
1 /`^�
"
/.
/
,
..
-
.
T
.
;,'
1 4:"
"`v
` SILTY SAND (SM)
\ Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
v
v
Medium dense below 10 feet
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
102.1
16.0 A
11 ■
100.2
6.4 A
23 ■
6.2 12
■
33.9 15
■
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 20 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B6
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-6
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
O
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
-
2 -
-\',
4—
-/
-\v'
-c.
6 _i\r
-r
10 •
' "•
V
..
,'fJ
v.
;h
Ur
\!f.
" 1
'
' d
'\\
`\ .
./.
\\
• \
\\
'rf
f1.
(
-
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 12 inches
92.8 2.9
.
18 ■
92.6 7.6.
23 •
12-
14-
16-
18-
-
-
20 -
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 10 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B7
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-7
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (%)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (°/0)
a)
Blows/ft.
Ground Surface
_
2-
4-1,
6_1
8 10
►
F;
i
v
.t,ti
:;;;
v
,v
r.
'
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 12 inches
•
A
100.3
1.5. 25
■
98.4 6.8.
26 •
12-
14-
16-
18-
-
-
20 -
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 10 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B8
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-8
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content r/o)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (°/0)
m
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
2 4
6 8
10 12
14-
16 18-
20 I
I'
�
I
, I
`.
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 10 feet
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
•
•
103.3
12.5 15
■
93.6 7.2
.
20 ■
4.4 18
■
34.3 11
■
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 5% Inches
Elevation: 20 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B9
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-9
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content (°/0)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
a>
a
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
_
_
2—F
_,
4 -!
-
6 -1
-,
8-
10—
12 14
16 _\,
18—`°
-
20 F .,
, I ;,.
.r.
I ,
F I
r.
iv
• ;
i .r
i•. ;,I
I
v
f• r
•- ,".,
,
�4'
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, dry to moist
Medium dense below 15 feet
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cutti ngs s 27.7
•
•
�
90.9 2.4
A
10 ■
97.2 8.7
u
14 MI
9.9 12
■
12 ■
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 5% Inches
Elevation: 20 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Log of Boring B10
Project: Bellflower Boulevard Shopping Center Project No: 112-21022 Client: SBH Real Estate Group, Inc. Figure No.: A-10
Location: 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, Bellflower, California Logged By: Angel Menchaca Depth to Water> Not Encountered Initial: N/A At Completion: N/A
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
SAMPLE
Penetration Test
blows/ft
20 40 60
Water Content C/o)
10 20 30 40
Depth (ft)
0 cn
Description
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
N
N
Blows/ft.
0 Ground Surface
2 -`
4—,.
-,
8 —
-r
-"'
10 `
ti
' `
•
'1
y.
/
;•,1
r'.
` 'r
SILTY SAND (SM)
Loose, fine-grained; brown, moist
Medium dense below 9 feet
93.2 2"2
4 9
■
98.2 7.0
J
17 ■
12 14-
16-
18-
-
-
20 -
End of Borehole
Water not encountered
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings
Drill Method: Hollow Stem
Drill Rig: CME 75
Driller: One Way Drilling
Krazan and Associates
Drill Date: 3-17-21
Hole Size: 51/2 Inches
Elevation: 10 Feet
Sheet: 1 of 1
Keh oe Testi ng and E ngi ne ering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting .com
www.kehoetesting .com
Project: Krazan & Associ ates / Bellflower Shoppi ng Center Location: Be llflowe r, CA
CPT -1
Total depth: 55.26 ft, Date: 5/14/2021
Cone resistan ce
2 4
6 8
10 _
12-
14 16 _
18-
20 _
22 _
24-
r-.
26 28
30 32
34 36
38 40-^r
42-
44-
46-
48--
50 52
54--
56 2-
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 22
24 42 26
28 0.
0 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 Sl eeve friction
2 4
6 Pore pr essur e u
8-
10-
12-
14 16-
18-
20-
22-
24 -
e 26-
,L., 28 -
a
O 30-
32-
34 36 ----
38-
40-
42-
44-
46-
48-
50-
52-
54 56
Fri ctio n ratio Soil Behaviour Typ e
2 4
6 8
10-
12-
14-
16-
18 _
20-
22-
24 -
d ▪ ▪ 26-
0.28 O 30-
32-
34-
36 --
38-
40-
42 44 -
46-
48 -
50 -
52 -
54-
56 0 100 200 300 400 S00 0 1 2 3 4 5 -20 -10 0 10 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tip resistance (tsf) Friction (tsf) Pressure (psi) Rf (°/0) 2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
i' 26
n 28
Iw 30
32 34
36 38
40 42
44 46
48 50
52 54
56 Sand &silty sand
Sand &silty sand —
1 Sakti &silty sand
_I
Silty sand& sandy silt
— Sand & siitysand------
Clay& silty .. clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Siltysand&sandy silt
_ Clay &silty clay
I Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt t
Sand & silty sand----;
Clay &silty.clayClay & silty clay
----�Gay
Gay
Clay
Gay & silty clay
4 Gay
Clay &-stltyclay'
i Clay &silly clay
Silty sand &sandysilt :
—Silty sand&sandysilt— —
Sand &_sitysand _{
Silty sand &sandy silt l
Clay & silty clay I
Gay&sitlyclay
Silly sand & sandy silt
Silty sand& sandy silt
Clay& silly clay
Clay & silty clay
Gay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt I
Clay & silty clay
Clay &silty clay
0 2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
CPeT-IT v .2. 3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretatio n software - Report created on: 5/17/2021, 11:27:48 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Krazan-Bellflower5-21\CPT Report\Plots.cpt
Consolidation Test
Project No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification 1
11221022
B-1 @ 5'
3/29/2021
_ SP
Load in Kips per Square Foot
Percent Consolidation
0.1 0.00
1.00 2.00 "" -.. `� I
3,00
4.00 5.00
6.00 --
i
7.00 8.00
9.00 10.00
10 100
% Consolidation @ 2Kst: 0.9 %
__ �
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Consolidation Test
Pro ect No
Boring No. & Depth
Date
Soil Classification
11221022
B-1 @ 10'
3/29/2021
SM/ML
Load in Kips per Square Foot
Percent Consolidation
0.1 0.00
1.00 2.00
3.00 4.00
5.00 6.00
7.00 8.00
9.00 10.00
1 10
100
% Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 1.3
1 Krazan Testing Laboratory
Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 30801 AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type
Date
11221022
B-1 @ 5'
SP
3/26/2021
3.00 2.00
41 1.00
Cohesion: 0.1 Ksf
Angle of Internal Friction: 29 °
t
0.00 --1
0.0 1.0 2.0
Normal Load, Ksf
3.0 Krazan Testing Laboratory
.Shear Strength Diagram (Direct Shear)
ASTM D - 3080 I AASHTO T - 236
Project Number
Boring No. & Depth
Soil Type
Date
11221022
B-8 @ 5'
SM
3/26/2021
3.00 2.00
r
L
1.00 0.00
----
1.0 2.0
00 Cohesion:
Angle of Internal Friction:
Normal Load, Ksf
0.1 Ksf
28 °
3.0 Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
'`Sieve
1.s
100
Openings in
Inches 1/2
..."-.4 ....4...- ...1.41 .411"......?..
3/4 3/8
U .S. Standard
.
I
Sieve Numbers
il k -!H R
#30 #200 Hydrometer
4 I �J
O
Z
u)
a
a
I-
z
w
0 LU
a.
_. fli
1-1/2
Mil
( i #% 0100
100.0
90.0 80.0
70.0 60.0
50.0 40.0
30.0 20.0
10.0 i
0 .0
10 0 1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coars e
Mediu m
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Pro je ct Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SP
B-1 @ 5'
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
ieve Openings in Inches 1/2
U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers #30 #200 Hydrometer
• -_,L__ .
`1 . ., 104.0
1-1!2 3/4. 3li
6 I I
t
90 .0
80.0 70.0
(9
60.0 z
fli
tri
50 .0
F -
z
ILI
40.0 C)
Ili
0-
30.0 - 20.0
i
10.0 ii
0 .0
100
10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001
Grain Siz e in Millimeters
Grav el
Sand
Silt or Clay
_
Coarse Fine
Coarse I Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Numbe r
Bellflower
11221022
SM/ML
B-1 @ 10'
Krazan Testing L abor atory
Grain Size Analy sis
%ieve Openings in Inches 1/2
U .S. Standard Sieve Numbers
#30
#200 Hydrometer
-s
1-112
.: -a-
, 3/4
3/3
,. ._
100 .0
z
in
co
a
i-
z1
0 w
0. 90.0
80.0 70.0
60.0 50.0
40 .0
30 .0
20.0 10.0
DO
1 10
1 01 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
0.0 0.001
G ravel
--r -
Sand
Silt or Clay
'
i
Coarse
Fin e
Coarse
Mediu m Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
So il Classificatio n
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM
B-1 @ 15'
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Grain Siz e Analysis
100
%ieve Openings in Aches 1/2
ID
U.S . Standard
Sieve Numbers
"'
#30 #200 Hydromet er
i -. .r -_ -
0 Z
D
H
z
w
O
CC
tL
14'2
3/4
3/8
M 4 -
,
1h mt
-.
100.0
90.0 80.0
70.0 60.0
I.
50 .0
40.0 30.0
20.0 10.0
10 .—...,.,...—,
1 0 1 0.01
G rain Size In Millimeters
, a .0
0.001
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified So ils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
ML
B-1 @ 20'
Krazan T esti ng Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
%ieve Openings in Itches 112 U .S. Standard Sie ve Numbers #30 #200 Hydromet er i* , 1 a
. , .r, a — -k .-i
1-1,2 3/4 31
_.. _
moo®
j i
100 .0
� I
90 .0
I
80 .0
70 .0
0 Z
60.0 U,
0 50.0
a-
z
w
40 .0 0
w
a
• 30.0
20.0 10.0
0 .0
100 10 1 0 1 0 .01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand Silt or Clay - - _____J
��
Coarse -_ J
Fine
Coarse
I M edium
Fine
r
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM/M L
B-1 @ 25'
Kra zan Te sting Laborat ory
Grai n Size Analysis
%ieve Openings in niches 1/2 U.S- Standard Sieve Numbers #30 #200 Hydr ometer . _ _ _ -1 I
i-1)2 3/4 3/8
Alle!)
;
I
100 .0
' i
I
90.0 80.0
'
70.0 k
O
60.0 z
(I)
50 .0 d
i--
z
w
40 .0 C)
-
•
a
30.0 1
1. 20.0
I
I
10.0 0.0
100 10 1 01 0 .01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
CoarseL Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classificatio n)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classifica tio n
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM
B-1 @ 30'
Kraz an T esting Laboratory
Grain Siz e A naly sis
Sieve Openings in Inches 1/2 U .S. Standard Sieve Numbers #30 #200 Hydrometer ♦ 100.0
---------------.-41P-+
1-1/2 3/4 3/
Mt +My
.. .4--
90.0 80.0
• 70.0
CD
60.0 z
t.7)
a
a 50.0 fl .
i-
z
W
40.0 U
i
(
CC
a.
30 .0
20 .0
10.0 ,
0 .0
P
100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001
Grain Siz e in Millimeters
Gravel I Sand
Silt or Clay
y
i Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classificatio n)
avtla
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflowe r
11221022
SM/ML
B-1 @ 35'
Kra za n T esting L aboratory
Grain Size Analysi s
%ieve Openings in irltch es 1/2
4F
U.S. Standard Si eve Numbers
#30 #200 Hydrometer
100 .0
90.0 80.0
70 .0
CD
z
iii
cn
4 a
I -
z
z
w
0 a
100
1-1/2
3/4
3/
_'
60.0 50 .0
40.0 ■
30 .0
20.0 i
i
10.0 0.0
10 1 0 1 0.01
Grain Size in Millimeters
0.001
Gra vel
San d
Silt or Clay
Coarse
I
(Unified Soils Classification) .. -...-
Proje ct Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM
B-1 @ 40'
Krazan T esting Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
%ieve Openings in Aches 1/2 U.S- Standard Sieve Numbers #30 #200 Hydrometer 1 1-112 3/4 3/I
--
Mt40
I
;
I
100 .0
90.0 j
i
i
•
80.0 I
�
t
70 .0
T
80.0 Z
U)
U)
50.0 D.
z
W
40.0 V
W
a
30 .0
20.0 10.0
l !
0.0 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grav el
Sa nd
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Me dium
Fine
I
1 (Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM
B-1 @ 45'
Kra za n T esting Laboratory
Grain Size Analysis
%ieve Openings in Itches 1/2 U.S. Standard Sie ve Numbers #30 #200 Hydrometer ®r 4r _ k i -4. R )- ' 2I I I ! J
,it,-
1-112 314 3lr'
, . Rue PtGu r.II
,.d
_
100 .0
-
.,90.0
i
-
00 .0
70.0 w
Z
60.0 CO
a
0-
50.0 zI
w
{
i
IO.
40 .0 O
w
30.0 20 .0 !'
10.0 0
0.0 .., ' a , _- w... ...-
100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size in Millimeters
Gravel
Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
M edium
Fine
(Unified Soils Classification)
Project Name
Project Number
Soil Classification
Sample Number
Bellflower
11221022
SM
B-1 @ 50'
Kraza n Testing Laboratory
Atterberq Limits Determination
ASTM D - 4318
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample Number
Sample Location/Depth
:11221022
: Bellflower Shopping Center
: 5/21/2021
: 20'
: B-1 @ 20'
Run Number
Plastic Limit
Licuid Limit
1 2
3 1
2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare
35.40 38.41
41.30 33.14
36.84 39.41
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare
31.12 32.54
34.51 28.41
30.51 32.14
Weight of water
4.28 5.87
6.79 4.73
6.33 7.27
Weight of Tare
11.13 11.18
11.21 11.18
11.20 11.13
Weight of Dry Soil
19.99 21.36
23.30 17.23
19.31 21.01
Water Content
21.4 27.5
29.1 27.5
32.8 34.6
Number of Blows
13 15
18 Plasticity Index
Classification of < #40
Unified Soil Classification
Plastic Limit : 26.01
. 18.80
. CL
: CL
Liquid Limit : 44.81
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
0 N.) 0 0 °i W
0 0
CH
CL
OH
or
MH
OL
ML
or
CL -ML
ML
0 20
40 60
LIQUID LIMIT, %
80 100 120
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Atterberq Limits Determination
ASTM D - 4318
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample Number
Sample Location/Depth
:11221022
: Bellflower Shopping Center
: 5/21/2021
: 30'
: B-1 @ 30'
Run Number
Plastic Limit
Licuid Limit
1 2
3 1
2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare
26.14 29.41
33.41 27.41
30.12 34.74
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare
24.12 26.11
28.57 23.84
25.21 28.11
Weight of water
2.02 3.30
4.84 3.57
4.91 6.63
Weight of Tare
11.20 11.20
11.34 11.20
11.26 11.24
Weight of Dry Soil
12.92 14.91
17.23 12.64
13.95 16.87
Water Content
15.6 22.1
28.1 28.2
35.2 39.3
Number of Blows
23 29
30 Plasticity Index
Classification of < #40
Unified Soil Classification
Plastic Limit : 21.95
. 8.95
. CL
: CL
Liquid Limit : 30.90
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
N W
7 O O O O O O
CH
CL
OH
or
MH
OL
ML
or
CL -ML
ML
0 20
40 60
LIQUID LIMIT, %
80 100 120
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Atterberq Limits Determination
ASTM D - 4318
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample Number
Sample Location/Depth
:11221022
: Bellflower Shopping Center
: 5/21/2021
: 40'
: B-1 @ 40'
Run Number
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
1 2
3 1
2 3
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare
37.41 31.12
33.44 27.74
31.62 27.86
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare
33.50 28.62
30.55 24.52
28.60 25.10
Weight of water
3.91 2.50
2.89 3.22
3.02 2.76
Weight of Tare
11.13 11.24
15.30 11.20
13.96 10.97
Weight of Dry Soil
22.37 17.38
15.25 13.32
14.64 14.13
Water Content
17.5 14.4
19.0 24.2
20.6 19.5
Number of Blows
16 22
27 Plasticity Index
Classification of < #40
Unified Soil Classification
Plastic Limit : 16.94
3.08 . ML
: ML
Liquid Limit : 20.02
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
N co A 01 m
O O O O O O O
CH
CL
OH
or
MH
OL
ML
or
CL -ML
ML
20 40 60
LIQUID LIMIT,
80 100 120
Krazan Testing Laboratory
R - VALUE TEST
ASTM D - 28441 CAL 301
Project Number
Project Name
Date
Sample Location/Curve Number
Soil Classification
11221022
Proposed Retail Bellflower
4/8/2021
B-2 @ 0-3'
SM
TEST
A
B
C
Percent Moisture @ Compaction, %
15.7 16.5
16.2 Dry Density, Ibm/cu.ft.
115.3
116.8
115.8
Exudation Pressure, psi
210
350
740
Expansion Pressure, (Dial Reading)
0 0
0 Expansion Pressure, psf
0 0
0 Resistance Value R
25 35
40 R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure
R Value by Expansion Pressure (TI =): 5
( 33
Expansion Pressure nil
r
300 PSI
Cover Thickness by Stabilometer, ft
D O a -+-s N N N w w 4
D4*. O0 N 61 O .4.• 'CO N T C
100
I
--f
90 80
i
'
I
70 ;
I
60 _
i
i
,
m
41)
�
5075.
.----
...I
cc
40 "f
30 1
r
,
-N
20 i
I
10 y
i
I
�_
e
0 Q 0 d 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O
O CD CD 1+ 0 LO .+:3' CO N •-
r Exudation Pressure, PSI
v.a,
O '�S CO N tp O et CO N t0 O
O O O ,,- r N N N C') M `cp
Cover Thick. Exp. Pressure, ft
Krazan Testing Laboratory
Appendix B
Page B.1
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence.
SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials.
PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer.
Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect.
No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork.
The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers.
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not less than 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 or CAL -216, as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined by the Soils Engineer. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
Appendix B
Page B.2
SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report.
The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contract documents for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.
DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off -site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and the preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious or otherwise unsuitable. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site.
Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Tree roots removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 11/2 feet of the ground surface. Backfill of tree root excavations should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas which are to receive fill materials shall not be permitted.
SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill, building or slab loads shall be prepared as outlined above, excavated/scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
Loose soil areas, areas of uncertified fill, and/or areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture -conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas which are to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material.
EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
Appendix B
Page B.3
FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer.
PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer.
Both cut and fill areas shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance.
SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
Appendix C
Page C.1
APPENDIX C
PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS
1. DEFINITIONS - The term "pavement" shall include asphaltic concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed.
The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the 2018 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual" is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the applicable tests outlined in the Materials Manual.
2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically noted as "Work Not Included."
3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses.
4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material, 1' Y2 inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.
5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall conform to the requirements of Section 25 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 25 of the Standard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
Appendix B
Page B.3
6. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades and dimensions shown on the plans.
The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG 64-10. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, %2 inch maximum size, medium grading and shall conform to the requirements set forth in Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. The drying, proportioning and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section
39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment and spreading and compacting mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50° F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination of steel wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine.
7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37.
Krazan & Associates, Inc.
With Offices Serving the Western United States
11221022 Revised Report (Retail Shopping Center)
Preliminary Low Impact Development (LID) Report
Appendix G: Master Covenant and Agreement
TO BE PROVIDED WITH FINAL DESIGN
15IPage
Air Quality Assessment
Bellflower Convenience Center Project
City of Bellflower, California
Kimley»>Horn
Expect More. Experience Better.
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
Contact: Mr. Ryan Chiene
714.705.1343
November 2025
City of Bellflower Bellflower Convenience Center
Air Quality Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Location 1
1.2 Project Description 1
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Climate and Meterology 6
2.2 Air Pollutants of Concern 7
2.3 Sensitive Receptors 10
3 REGULATORY SETTING
3.1 Federal 11
3.2 State of California 12
3.3 Regional 13
3.4 Local 16
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Air Quality Thresholds 17
4.2 Methodology 19
5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
5.1 Air Quality Analysis 20
6 REFERENCES
References 32
TABLES
Table 1 Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns 7 Table 2 Ambient Air Quality Data 9
Table 3 Sensitive Receptors 10
Table 4 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards 11 Table 5 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status 14
Table 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds 16 Table 7 Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations 19 Table 8 Construction -Related Emissions 22
Table 9 Long -Term Operational Emissions 24
Table 10 Equipment -Specific Disturbance Rates 26
Table 11 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions 26 Table 12 Localized Significance of Operational Emissions 27 November 2025
Kimley>>Horn
Page I ii
City of Bellflower Bellflower Convenience Center
Air Quality Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity 3
Exhibit 2 Site Vicinity 4
Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data
November 2025
Kimley>»Horn
Page I iii
City of Bellflower Bellflower Convenience Center
Air Quality Assessment
LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
AQMP air quality management plan
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CaIEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
cy cubic yards
DPM diesel particulate matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
H2S hydrogen sulfide
Pb Lead
LST local significance threshold
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxide
O3 Ozone
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.s particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SRA source receptor area
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
sf square foot
SO4_2 Sulfates
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TAC toxic air contaminant
C2H3CI vinyl chloride
VOC volatile organic compound
November 2025
Kimley>»Horn
Page I iv
City of Bellflower Bellflower Convenience Center
Air Quality Assessment
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality Assessment completed for the Bellflower Convenience Center Project ("Project" or "Proposed Project"). The purpose of this Air Quality Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located in southern Bellflower, in Los Angeles County (County), California; refer to Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity. The proposed Project site is located at 17617 Bellflower Boulevard, on the west side of Bellflower Boulevard, between Cedar Street and Ramona Street, in the City of Bellflower. The Project site is bounded by Ramona Street and commercial uses to the north, Cedar Street, commercial uses, and residential uses to the south, Bellflower Boulevard and commercial uses to the east, and residential and commercial uses to the west; see Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity.
The Project site is a vacant rectangular -shaped site on 3.63 acres. Previously, there was an automotive dealership, a restaurant, and other commercial/retails buildings on the Project Site. These buildings were demolished at the end of 2017. The Project site is currently vacant and shows signs of ruderal grasses, but no native habitat remains on -site. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C) and is zoned DFD (Design for Development).
1.2 Project Description
The proposed Project is a commercial development comprised of a shopping center. The Project would include two drive-thru quick -serve restaurants (Building 1 and Building 2), one retail building for multiple tenants with a drive-thru lane (Building 3), a convenience store and automotive fueling station (Building 4), and 143 parking stalls, including 24 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations; refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan. The Project components are described further below:
Building 1: Restaurant
Building 1 would consist of a new one-story drive-thru restaurant totaling approximately 1,025 -square feet (sf). The restaurant would be located on the southern portion of the overall Project site. The main entrance for guests would be provided on the north side of the building via an entrance to the building.
The drive-thru portion would have an entrance on the western side of the building and exit on the eastern side of the building. There would also be an outdoor seating area of approximately 336 sf on the western side of the building.
Building 2: Restaurant
Building 2 would consist of a new one-story drive-thru restaurant totaling approximately 2,568 sf. The restaurant would be located on the southern portion of the overall Project site. The main entrance for guests would be provided on northern side of the building. The drive-thru would have an entrance on the western side of the building and exit on the southeastern side of the building. There would also be an outdoor seating area of approximately 510 sf on the northeastern side of the building.
November 2025
Kimley>»Horn
Page I 1
City of Bellflower Bellflower Convenience Center
Air Quality Assessment
Building 3: Restaurant
Building 3 would consist of a new one-story building with multiple restaurants totaling approximately 5,728 sf including one restaurant with a drive-thru. The restaurant building would be located in the central portion of the overall Project site. The main entrance for guests would be provided on the northern side of the building via an entrance to the building. The drive-thru portion would have an entrance on the western side of the building and exit on the northeastern side of the building. There would also be an outdoor seating area of approximately 748 sf on the northern side of the building.
Building 4: Retail
Building 4 would consist of a one-story, approximately 3,062 sf, gas station convenience store with eight fueling pumps. The proposed building would be generally located on the northern portion of the Project site. The main entrance would be located on the eastern side of the building and the fueling pumps would be located to the east of the convenience store.
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
The Project proposes an EV Charging Station with 24 EV charging stalls. The proposed EV charging station would include two stalls designated for accessible and van use. The proposed charging station is located on the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to Building 4.
Project Circulation
The Project site's ingress and egress would be provided via five driveways with three located on Bellflower Boulevard, one located on Cedars Streets, and one located on Ramona Street. Two of the three driveways on Bellflower Boulevard would be 30' feet and the driveway closest to the proposed gas station would be 35'feet. A 26' foot driveway would be on Cedar Street and another 35' foot driveway would be on Ramona Street, directly to the northwest of the proposed gas station. All driveways would allow access to all buildings throughout the Project site.
Parking
The Project would provide 143 parking stalls, with vehicle parking located throughout the site and between the various establishments.
Project Phasing and Construction
The Project is anticipated to be constructed in one phase. Should the Project be approved, construction is anticipated to occur for approximately 11 months, beginning in September 2026 and completing in July 2027.
November 2025
Kimley>»Horn