intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS ( LOS E or F) without Project traffic it is assumed that there would be no impact to the intersection.
Study Intersections
In addition to the three primary Project driveways shown in Attachment 1, the following study intersections are proposed:
1. 132nd Street & Inglewood Avenue (signalized)
2. 133rd Street & Inglewood Avenue (unsignalized)
3. 134th Street & Inglewood Avenue (unsignalized)
4. 135th Street & Inglewood Avenue (signalized)
Existing Traffic Counts
New weekday morning (7-9AM) and evening (4-6PM) intersection peak hour traffic counts at the study intersections will be collected. A seasonal factor for traffic counts will be applied for the summer season since schools are out of session. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 24-hour counts along Inglewood Avenue will also be collected on the same day as the intersection counts. The 24-hour count will also provide the lane utilization along Inglewood Avenue.
Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the future cumulative scenario (2035) will be developed by applying a growth rate based on the Southern California Coalition of Governments’ (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Project Trip Generation
The trips expected to be generated by the project were calculated using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). Pass-by reduction factors were applied to the proposed land use. Trip rates are based on the ITE land use category 934 - Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru.
The trip rates and the estimated vehicle trips for the proposed uses are shown in Attachment 2.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 1,768 daily trips, with 169 trips in the AM peak hour, and 125 trips in the PM peak hour.
After applying a pass-by reduction factor, the project is estimated to generate approximately 840 daily trips, with 84 trips in the AM peak hour, and 56 trips in the PM peak hour.
Project Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution assumptions are shown on Attachment 3.
Cumulative Traffic
City staff will provide a list of cumulative projects for use in the traffic study, which will include eligible developments within one half-mile of the project. For cumulative projects, it is requested that address, land use, quantities, and other pertinent information for each project be provided if available. If this information is not available, an ambient growth factor based the SCAGRTP/SCS model will be used to develop traffic volumes for the cumulative scenario.
Left Turn Pocket Analysis
A queueing analysis will be completed to determine if a southbound left-turn pocket is warranted on Inglewood Avenue at the Project Driveway. The analysis will reference the existing conditions including traffic volumes and lane utilization as well as the Project trip generation and distribution. Guidelines included in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 745 Left-Turn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections (2013) will also be referenced.
Crosswalk Warrant and Treatment Analysis
Based on coordination with City staff, the installation of a crosswalk at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and W 134th Street will be evaluated to determine the most suitable crosswalk treatment. The two possible crosswalk treatments that will be considered include Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB’s) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs).
The analysis will reference the existing conditions including traffic volumes, speed limit, roadway configuration, and trip generation and distribution. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations will be used as guidance for determining the appropriate treatment at the intersection. Guidance from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) will also be used to determine if a RRFB or PHB is warranted.
VMT Screening
With the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743 by the California Legislature in September 2013, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under SB 743, the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was charged with developing new guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA in order to replace methods measuring automobile delay and Level of Service. In response to this mandate, the Office of Planning and Research proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which indicates that VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance is the most appropriate measure for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts.
Section 15064.3 goes on to clarify that except for projects regarding roadway capacity, “…a project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact.” The
OPR further elaborates on VMT metrics within the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA document, published in December 2018. Subsequently, LA County, via the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) has established VMT screening thresholds of significance for projects within the City.
The VMT guidelines provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed analysis. The screening criteria are as follows:
1. Project Size
2. Locally Serving Retail
3. Project Located in a Low VMT Area
4. Transit Proximity
5. Affordable Housing
6. Transportation Facilities
A local-serving retail project with space of less than 50,000 square feet would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact. Since the project involves local-serving retail fast food restaurant and coffee shop the project would screen out of VMT under Locally Serving Retail criteria.
In accordance with the Technical Advisory and with Los Angeles County Guidelines, the proposed project is presumed to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and support the goals of SB 743. No further VMT assessment is anticipated.
Mitigation Measures
Based on the results of the traffic analysis, mitigation on the basis of LOS will be discussed, if applicable.
81 81 STOP OH ELEC OH COMM OH ELEC
OH COMM
8" SEWER
8" SEWER
8" WATER 8" WATER 8" WATER
8" SEWER
4" WATER 4" WATER 4" WATER
6" GAS
6" GAS
16" WATER 16" WATER 16" WATER 6" WATER 6" WATER 2" GAS 2" GAS W 133RD STREET (MASSACHUSETTS AVE) PUBLIC R.O.W.
SOUTH INGLEWOOD AVENUE
PUBLIC R.O.W. TRASH ENCLOSURE McDONALD'S (4584 PROTO) ±3,781 SF MOBILE ORDER McDelivery MOBILE ORDER MOBILE ORDER
(EV CAPABLE)(EV CAPABLE)(EV CAPABLE) ORDER MOBILE ORDER MOBILE (EV CAPABLE) (EV CAPABLE)
(EV CAPABLE)(EV CAPABLE)
OOSP OOSP McDelivery W 134TH STREET (RHODE ISLAND AVENUE) PUBLIC R.O.W. McDonald's USA, LLC Proposed McDonald's Restaurant #004-5205 PLANNING AND DESIGN 153 E. City Place Dr. | Santa Ana | CA | 92705 Phone 714.892-3900 | Fax 714.892-3944 13324 W. 133rd St. Hawthorne, CA 90250 29 May 2024 Attachment 1 - Site Plan
ATTACHMENT 2
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
13324 S Inglewood Avenue McDonalds Project
Trip Generation Rates 1
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Code Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru 934 KSF 467.48 22.751 21.859 44.61 17.176 15.854 33.03 Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru 3.781 KSF 1,768 86 83 169 65 60 125 Pass-by Trips (52.5% Daily, 50% AM, 55% PM) 1,2 -928 -43 -42 -85 -36 -33 -69 Net Trips 840 43 41 84 29 27 56
Total Project Trips 840 43 41 84 29 27 56
1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition 2 Note: The Trip Generation Manual does not provide pass-by rates for daily trip generation. The daily pass-by trips shown are the average of the AM and the PM pass-by percentage.
26602 Valley Center Drive Retail Project
Trip Generation
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
June 2024
LEGEND:
PROJECT SITE
STUDY INTERSECTION/DRIVEWAY N
NTS /
TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE XX% ATTACHMENT 3
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND STUDY AREA S Inglewood Ave W 134th St 30% W 133rd St 10% W 133rd St W 134th St W 132nd St W 132nd St W 135th St W 135th St 10% 30% 4%4%4%4% 2% 2%
Traffic Impact Assessment
35 Appendix B - Turning Movement Counts and Average Daily Traffic Counts Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-020227-001 Day:
City: Hawthorne Date:
AM 4 571 4 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 11 1056 21 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 0 0 0 18 0 20
1 2 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 25 0 16
7 0 14 0 TEV 1125 0 1996 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 1 PHF 0.93 0.95
9 0 20 0
0 0 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 2 6 785 33 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 7 476 7 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 596
NORTHBOUND
Inglewood Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
57 0 12
Totals (AM) 1103 Total Bikes (AM) 132nd St EASTBOUNDWESTBOUND 132nd St 14 0 19
CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 817
Inglewood Ave & 132nd St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Inglewood Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/9/2024 PEAK HOURS 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 503 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM COUNT PERIODS
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
6 0
3 2
0 0
10 040 2
7 0
4 9
0 7
10 110 2
0 0
0 0
0 1
030
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
170
000
18 2
20 25
3 14 111056 21
6785 33
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
20 3
9 16
1 7
45714
74767
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-020227-002 Day:
City: Hawthorne Date:
AM 8 579 10 1 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 14 1067 27 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 0 0 0 15 0 21
1 2 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 10 0 9
1 0 8 0 TEV 1129 0 2007 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 1 PHF 0.93 0.96
14 0 22 0
0 0 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 9 812 19 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 7 476 0 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 835
Inglewood Ave & 133rd St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Inglewood Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/9/2024 PEAK HOURS 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 499 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM COUNT PERIODS NONE 48 0 11
Totals (AM) 1099 Total Bikes (AM) 133rd St EASTBOUNDWESTBOUND 133rd St 17 0 25
CONTROL
2-Way Stop(EB/WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 602
NORTHBOUND
Inglewood Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
6 0
3 3
0 0
30 000 0
0 0
2 0
0 1
00 000 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
030
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
070
000
15 2
22 10
2 8 141067 27
9812 19
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
21 2
14 9
1 1
8579 10
74760
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-020227-003 Day:
City: Hawthorne Date:
AM 7 584 15 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 14 1059 30 2 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 0 0 0 15 0 29
1 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 6 0 10
4 0 3 0 TEV 1123 0 1998 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 PHF 0.93 0.95
8 0 13 0
0 0 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 9 813 31 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 2 450 13 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 602
NORTHBOUND
Inglewood Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
62 0 28
Totals (AM) 1079 Total Bikes (AM) 134th St EASTBOUNDWESTBOUND 134th St 10 0 24
CONTROL
2-Way Stop(EB/WB)
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 833
Inglewood Ave & 134th St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Inglewood Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/9/2024 PEAK HOURS 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 483 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM COUNT PERIODS
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
5 0
3 9
0 1
00 000 0
3 0
5 4
0 3
00 000 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
030
010
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 1
0 0
060
001
15 1
13 6
1 3 141059 30
9813 31
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
29 1
8 10
0 4
7584 15
2450 13
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 24-020227-004 Day:
City: Hawthorne Date:
AM 0 591 11 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 0 1051 21 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 0 0 0 23 0 26
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 48 0 79
0 0 0 0 TEV 1191 0 2126 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 0.96
0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 0 856 127 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 450 34 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 670
NORTHBOUND
Inglewood Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
148 0 45
Totals (AM) 1099 Total Bikes (AM) 135th St E EASTBOUNDWESTBOUND 135th St E 0 0 0
CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 879
Inglewood Ave & 135th St E
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Inglewood Ave Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 7/9/2024 PEAK HOURS 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM 476 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM COUNT PERIODS
AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON PMNOON AMAMNOON PM PMNOON AMAMNOON PM
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 000 0
2 0
7 3
0 2
10 100 2
0 0
0 1
0 0
050
013
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
060
012
23 0
0 48
0 0
01051 21
0856 127
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
26 0
0 79
0 0
0591 11
0450 34
Day: Tuesday City: Hawthorne
Date: Project #: CA24_020226_001
NB SB EB WB Total
9,974 11,645 0 0 21,619
TIME NB SB EB WB TOTAL TIME NB SB EB WB TOTAL NB SB EB WB TOTAL 0:00 11 14 25 12:00 63 99 162 00:00 01:00 39 49 88
0:15 9 10 19 12:15 79 100 179 01:00 02:00 31 14 45
0:30 11 12 23 12:30 78 90 168 02:00 03:00 22 21 43
0:45 8 13 21 12:45 81 82 163 03:00 04:00 36 33 69
1:00 6 7 13 13:00 86 87 173 04:00 05:00 53 36 89
1:15 9 1 10 13:15 70 93 163 05:00 06:00 96 68 164
1:30 10 1 11 13:30 75 81 156 06:00 07:00 173 125 298
1:45 6 5 11 13:45 80 78 158 07:00 08:00 257 274 531
2:00 5 4 9 14:00 78 95 173 08:00 09:00 266 274 540
2:15 5 5 10 14:15 71 94 165 09:00 10:00 232 283 515
2:30 6 4 10 14:30 83 83 166 10:00 11:00 267 307 574
2:45 6 8 14 14:45 82 107 189 11:00 12:00 342 344 686
3:00 6 5 11 15:00 79 117 196 12:00 13:00 301 371 672
3:15 7 5 12 15:15 72 112 184 13:00 14:00 311 339 650
3:30 13 14 27 15:30 83 111 194 14:00 15:00 314 379 693
3:45 10 9 19 15:45 83 146 229 15:00 16:00 317 486 803
4:00 10 2 12 16:00 70 125 195 16:00 17:00 321 489 810
4:15 14 8 22 16:15 69 119 188 17:00 18:00 352 526 878
4:30 13 13 26 16:30 84 118 202 18:00 19:00 305 469 774
4:45 16 13 29 16:45 98 127 225 19:00 20:00 233 337 570
5:00 19 8 27 17:00 91 147 238 20:00 21:00 234 231 465
5:15 22 19 41 17:15 96 127 223 21:00 22:00 173 184 357
5:30 29 17 46 17:30 78 115 193 22:00 23:00 133 115 248
5:45 26 24 50 17:45 87 137 224 23:00 00:00 79 65 144
6:00 40 28 68 18:00 84 132 216
6:15 40 26 66 18:15 73 112 185 NB SB EB WB TOTAL
6:30 38 32 70 18:30 76 115 191 00:00 to 12:00
6:45 55 39 94 18:45 72 110 182 1814 1828 3642
7:00 62 52 114 19:00 60 105 165 11:00 11:00 11:00
7:15 58 72 130 19:15 57 86 143 342 344 686
7:30 73 73 146 19:30 62 73 135 0.814 0.804 0.903
7:45 64 77 141 19:45 54 73 127
8:00 67 70 137 20:00 61 55 116 12:00 to 00:00
8:15 66 75 141 20:15 62 52 114 3073 3991 7064
8:30 67 60 127 20:30 55 64 119 16:30 17:00 16:30
8:45 66 69 135 20:45 56 60 116 369 526 888
9:00 53 65 118 21:00 46 50 96 0.941 0.895 0.933
9:15 60 77 137 21:15 45 46 91
9:30 56 66 122 21:30 41 38 79 07:00 to 09:00
9:45 63 75 138 21:45 41 50 91 523 548 1071
10:00 69 75 144 22:00 41 34 75 7:30 7:30 7:30
10:15 64 102 166 22:15 37 24 61 270 295 565
10:30 64 59 123 22:30 31 25 56 0.925 0.958 0.967
10:45 70 71 141 22:45 24 32 56
11:00 71 66 137 23:00 30 20 50 16:00 to 18:00
11:15 83 86 169 23:15 19 17 36 673 1015 1688
11:30 105 85 190 23:30 22 19 41 16:30 17:00 16:30
11:45 83 107 190 23:45 8 9 17 369 526 888
TOTALS 1814 1828 0 0 3642 TOTALS 3073 3991 0 0 7064 0.941 0.895 0.933 SPLIT % 50% 50% 0% 0% 34% SPLIT % 44% 56% 0% 0% 66%
Volume
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
Inglewood Ave Bet 133rd St & 134th St
7/9/2024
DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS
15-Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals
TIME
STATISTICS
Peak Period
Volume
Peak Hour
Peak Volume
Peak Hour Factor
Peak Period
Volume
Peak Hour
Peak Volume
Peak Hour Factor
Peak Period
Peak Hour
Peak Volume
Peak Hour Factor
Peak Hour
Peak Volume
Peak Hour Factor
Peak Period
Volume
0 100
200
300
400
500
600 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
NB SB EB WB
Traffic Impact Assessment
36 Appendix C - LOS Worksheets
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 1 10 18 3 23 8 545 8 5 653 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 8 1 10 18 3 23 8 545 8 5 653 5
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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 1 14 24 4 31 9 592 9 5 695 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 44 4 57 82 14 106 99 1164 535 94 1172 535
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 708 64 901 682 114 881 15 3449 1585 6 3473 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 0 59 0 0 321 280 9 375 325 5
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1673 0 0 1678 0 0 1847 1617 1585 1862 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.1 0.0 6.6 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.4 5.5 0.1 6.6 6.6 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.54 0.41 0.53 0.03 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 0 202 0 0 717 545 535 720 545 535 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.51 0.02 0.52 0.60 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1013 0 0 931 0 0 2601 2243 2199 2651 2243 2199 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 17.7 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5 8.8 10.9 10.9 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.0 2.1 1.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 18.9 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 10.9 11.3 8.8 11.5 11.9 8.7 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 26 59 610 705
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 16.7 11.1 11.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.4 10.8 20.4 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 3.3 8.6 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.0 0.2 4.8 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.7
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 17 10 569 662 9
Future Vol, veh/h 1 17 10 569 662 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 18 11 618 720 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1054 363 732 0 - 0
Stage 1 723 - - - - -
Stage 2 331 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 221 634 868 - - -
Stage 1 442 - - - - -
Stage 2 700 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 217 632 866 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 217 - - - - -
Stage 1 434 - - - - -
Stage 2 698 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v11.52 0.29 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 62 - 571 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.034 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 0.1 11.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 26 545 0 14 678
Future Vol, veh/h 10 26 545 0 14 678
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 3 3 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 73 73 91 91 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 36 599 0 15 737
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1001 302 0 0 602 0
Stage 1 602 - - - - -
Stage 2 399 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 239 694 - - 972 -
Stage 1 510 - - - - -
Stage 2 647 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 234 692 - - 969 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 234 - - - - -
Stage 1 508 - - - - -
Stage 2 634 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.02 0 0.34
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 448 73 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.11 0.016 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14 8.8 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 9 3 548 668 8
Future Vol, veh/h 5 9 3 548 668 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 0 0 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 10 3 596 726 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1034 367 739 0 - 0
Stage 1 730 - - - - -
Stage 2 304 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 228 630 863 - - -
Stage 1 438 - - - - -
Stage 2 722 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 225 628 860 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 225 - - - - -
Stage 1 434 - - - - -
Stage 2 719 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.79 0.09 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 20 - 383 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - 0.04 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 0 14.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th Street 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 34 515 15 17 677
Future Vol, veh/h 11 34 515 15 17 677
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 8 8 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 92 92 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 44 560 16 18 728
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 968 288 0 0 584 0
Stage 1 568 - - - - -
Stage 2 401 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 251 709 - - 987 -
Stage 1 531 - - - - -
Stage 2 645 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 244 703 - - 979 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 244 - - - - -
Stage 1 527 - - - - -
Stage 2 630 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.51 0 0.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 481 88 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.121 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 13.5 8.7 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 30 515 39 13 676
Future Volume (veh/h) 90 30 515 39 13 676
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 50 548 41 14 735
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 173 58 2767 1234 57 2657
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Sat Flow, veh/h 1290 430 3647 1585 33 3498
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 201 0 548 41 398 351
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1777 1585 1829 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 4.8 0.7 0.0 7.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 4.8 0.7 7.2 7.4
Prop In Lane 0.75 0.25 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 0 2767 1234 1455 1259
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.28
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 0 2767 1234 1455 1259
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 0.0 3.5 3.0 3.7 3.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 1.4 0.2 2.3 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 62.6 0.0 3.6 3.1 4.2 4.3
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 201 589 749
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.6 3.6 4.3
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.9 98.9 21.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 9.4 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 5.3 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.6
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 54 71 475 673 94
Future Volume (veh/h) 79 54 71 475 673 94
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 87 77 516 732 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 145 99 294 1954 2730 1218
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1002 687 332 2629 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 268 325 732 102
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1259 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.9 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.9 0.0 4.7 7.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.40 0.29 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 245 0 1006 1242 2730 1218
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1006 1242 2730 1218
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 0.0 3.8 4.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.4 0.0 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 64.9 0.0 4.4 4.5 0.2 0.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 215 593 834
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.9 4.5 0.2
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 97.7 22.3 97.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 16.9 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.4 6.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.2
HCM 7th LOSB
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 3 23 29 2 21 9 898 38 24 1208 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 3 23 29 2 21 9 898 38 24 1208 13 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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 4 32 39 3 28 10 976 41 26 1285 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 65 11 91 103 8 74 60 1745 803 71 1715 803
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 653 114 908 947 73 680 10 3444 1585 30 3386 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 0 70 0 0 525 461 41 693 618 14 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1674 0 0 1701 0 0 1837 1617 1585 1799 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.9 1.5 20.4 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 12.8 13.1 0.9 19.6 20.4 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.39 0.54 0.56 0.40 0.02 1.00 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 167 0 0 185 0 0 986 819 803 967 819 803 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.56 0.05 0.72 0.75 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 0 0 561 0 0 1544 1333 1307 1514 1333 1307 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 28.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.4 8.3 12.9 13.1 8.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.0 0.3 6.9 6.4 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.3 0.0 0.0 28.9 0.0 0.0 11.7 12.0 8.4 13.9 14.6 8.2 LnGrp LOS C C B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 70 1027 1325
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 28.9 11.7 14.2
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.8 13.3 40.8 12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 4.6 22.4 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 0.3 11.4 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.9
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 27 12 946 1221 16
Future Vol, veh/h 9 27 12 946 1221 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 9 0 0 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 29 13 1028 1327 17
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1876 673 1354 0 - 0
Stage 1 1336 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 63 398 504 - - -
Stage 1 210 - - - - -
Stage 2 548 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 60 395 500 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 60 - - - - -
Stage 1 200 - - - - -
Stage 2 543 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v33.59 0.59 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 45 - 164 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.238 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.4 0.4 33.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 19 929 22 33 1246
Future Vol, veh/h 11 19 929 22 33 1246
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 73 73 91 91 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 26 1021 24 36 1354
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1770 510 0 0 1045 0
Stage 1 1021 - - - - -
Stage 2 749 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 75 508 - - 661 -
Stage 1 309 - - - - -
Stage 2 428 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 508 - - 661 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 - - - - -
Stage 1 309 - - - - -
Stage 2 391 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v37.61 0 1.14
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 151 93 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.273 0.054 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 37.6 10.8 0.9
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 16 12 947 1212 16
Future Vol, veh/h 3 16 12 947 1212 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 17 13 1029 1317 17
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1872 673 1349 0 - 0
Stage 1 1331 - - - - -
Stage 2 541 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 64 398 506 - - -
Stage 1 211 - - - - -
Stage 2 548 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 60 393 500 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 60 - - - - -
Stage 1 201 - - - - -
Stage 2 540 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v24.14 0.59 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 45 - 209 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.099 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.4 0.4 24.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th Street 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 18 930 35 38 1227
Future Vol, veh/h 7 18 930 35 38 1227
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 7 7 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 92 92 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 23 1011 38 41 1319
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1759 512 0 0 1056 0
Stage 1 1018 - - - - -
Stage 2 741 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 76 507 - - 655 -
Stage 1 310 - - - - -
Stage 2 432 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 68 503 - - 651 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 - - - - -
Stage 1 308 - - - - -
Stage 2 389 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v29.38 0 1.31
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 180 108 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.181 0.063 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 29.4 10.9 1
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.2 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 26 979 145 24 1202
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 26 979 145 24 1202
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 43 1041 154 26 1307
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 111 52 2902 1294 60 2731
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 1160 542 3647 1585 36 3430
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 0 1041 154 698 635
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1715 0 1777 1585 1764 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 14.2
Prop In Lane 0.68 0.32 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165 0 2902 1294 1471 1320
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.47 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 0 2902 1294 1471 1320
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 63.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.3 4.6
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 136 1195 1333
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.2 0.1 4.4
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 103.5 103.5 16.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 16.2 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.5 13.6 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.5
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Existing Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 231 156 24 867 1231 53
Future Volume (veh/h) 231 156 24 867 1231 53
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 252 26 942 1338 58
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 219 148 67 2257 2473 1103
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1011 683 50 3329 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 626 0 493 475 1338 58
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1677 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 0.0 13.1 15.2 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.60 0.40 0.05 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 368 0 1198 1125 2473 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 1.70 0.00 0.41 0.42 0.54 0.05
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1198 1125 2473 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 7.5 7.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 327.7 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln44.5 0.0 5.0 5.1 0.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 374.7 0.0 8.6 9.0 0.7 0.1
LnGrp LOS F A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 626 968 1396
Approach Delay, s/veh 374.7 8.8 0.7
Approach LOS F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.0 31.0 89.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.2 28.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.2 0.0 15.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 81.6
HCM 7th LOSF
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 2 12 19 7 24 9 573 9 6 683 9
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 2 12 19 7 24 9 573 9 6 683 9
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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 2 13 21 8 26 10 623 10 7 742 10 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 45 8 53 74 28 91 97 1223 563 93 1231 563
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 712 129 842 647 246 801 16 3445 1585 9 3467 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 0 55 0 0 338 295 10 401 348 10 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1683 0 0 1694 0 0 1844 1617 1585 1859 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.2 0.0 7.2 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 5.8 0.2 7.1 7.2 0.2 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.50 0.38 0.47 0.03 1.00 0.02 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 0 193 0 0 746 574 563 750 574 563 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.51 0.02 0.53 0.61 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 996 0 0 919 0 0 2532 2193 2149 2579 2193 2149 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 18.1 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.3 8.5 10.7 10.7 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.3 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 11.0 8.5 11.3 11.8 8.5 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 26 55 643 759
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 17.3 10.8 11.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.4 10.6 21.4 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 3.2 9.2 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.2 5.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.6
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 19 11 597 692 11
Future Vol, veh/h 3 19 11 597 692 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 21 12 649 752 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1104 379 767 0 - 0
Stage 1 755 - - - - -
Stage 2 348 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 205 619 842 - - -
Stage 1 425 - - - - -
Stage 2 686 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 201 617 840 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 201 - - - - -
Stage 1 416 - - - - -
Stage 2 684 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v12.88 0.32 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 65 - 481 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - 0.05 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 0.2 12.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 31 573 0 15 709
Future Vol, veh/h 11 31 573 0 15 709
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 3 3 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 34 623 0 16 771
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1044 314 0 0 626 0
Stage 1 626 - - - - -
Stage 2 418 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 225 681 - - 952 -
Stage 1 495 - - - - -
Stage 2 632 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 219 679 - - 949 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 219 - - - - -
Stage 1 494 - - - - -
Stage 2 619 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.17 0 0.37
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 438 75 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.104 0.017 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.2 8.9 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 11 4 576 698 12
Future Vol, veh/h 7 11 4 576 698 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 0 0 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 12 4 626 759 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1084 383 776 0 - 0
Stage 1 763 - - - - -
Stage 2 322 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 211 615 836 - - -
Stage 1 421 - - - - -
Stage 2 707 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 208 612 833 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 208 - - - - -
Stage 1 417 - - - - -
Stage 2 705 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.92 0.12 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 25 - 349 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.056 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 0.1 15.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 35 542 16 18 708
Future Vol, veh/h 12 35 542 16 18 708
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 8 8 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 38 589 17 20 770
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1021 303 0 0 615 0
Stage 1 597 - - - - -
Stage 2 424 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 232 693 - - 961 -
Stage 1 513 - - - - -
Stage 2 628 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 225 688 - - 954 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 225 - - - - -
Stage 1 509 - - - - -
Stage 2 612 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.01 0 0.43
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 451 89 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.113 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14 8.9 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 31 543 40 14 708
Future Volume (veh/h) 92 31 543 40 14 708
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 34 590 43 15 770
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 121 41 2906 1296 60 2784
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 1280 435 3647 1585 35 3490
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 590 43 416 369
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1777 1585 1823 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 0.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 6.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 0.0 4.4 0.6 6.3 6.5
Prop In Lane 0.74 0.25 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 0 2906 1296 1522 1322
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.28
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 0 2906 1296 1522 1322
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 0.0 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.8 1.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 63.2 0.0 2.5 2.1 3.0 3.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 135 633 785
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.2 2.5 3.1
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 103.6 103.6 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 8.5 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 5.6 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.1
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 57 73 502 704 100
Future Volume (veh/h) 82 57 73 502 704 100
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 62 79 546 765 109
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 106 74 299 2043 2863 1277
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 993 692 323 2620 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 280 345 765 109
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1696 0 1241 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 0.0 4.1 6.3 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.41 0.28 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 1038 1303 2863 1277
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1038 1303 2863 1277
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.6 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.0 0.0 1.3 1.7 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 62.5 0.0 3.3 3.4 0.2 0.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 152 625 874
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.5 3.3 0.2
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 102.2 17.8 102.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 12.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 0.3 6.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.1
HCM 7th LOSA
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 4 26 30 7 22 10 939 39 25 1256 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 4 26 30 7 22 10 939 39 25 1256 18 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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 4 28 33 8 24 11 1021 42 27 1365 20 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 61 12 82 90 22 65 59 1818 839 70 1789 839
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 665 127 886 870 211 633 11 3436 1585 30 3382 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 0 0 65 0 0 548 484 42 736 656 20 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1678 0 0 1713 0 0 1830 1617 1585 1795 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.9 2.3 22.2 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 13.5 13.9 0.9 21.4 22.2 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.40 0.53 0.51 0.37 0.02 1.00 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 0 0 177 0 0 1021 855 839 1003 855 839 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.05 0.73 0.77 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 583 0 0 546 0 0 1487 1289 1263 1462 1289 1263 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 29.3 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.9 7.9 12.6 12.9 7.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 4.2 0.3 7.5 6.9 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 0.0 30.1 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.5 7.9 13.7 14.5 7.8 LnGrp LOS C C B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 53 65 1074 1412
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.6 30.1 11.2 14.0
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.5 13.1 43.5 12.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 4.4 24.2 4.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.4 0.2 12.3 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.6
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 30 13 989 1270 19
Future Vol, veh/h 12 30 13 989 1270 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 9 0 0 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 33 14 1075 1380 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1955 699 1410 0 - 0
Stage 1 1389 - - - - -
Stage 2 566 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 56 382 480 - - -
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 532 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 53 379 476 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 53 - - - - -
Stage 1 186 - - - - -
Stage 2 527 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v44.01 0.69 0
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 47 - 137 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.334 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.8 0.5 44 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.3 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 25 971 23 34 1295
Future Vol, veh/h 12 25 971 23 34 1295
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 27 1055 25 37 1408
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1833 528 0 0 1080 0
Stage 1 1055 - - - - -
Stage 2 778 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 68 495 - - 641 -
Stage 1 296 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 61 495 - - 641 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 61 - - - - -
Stage 1 296 - - - - -
Stage 2 374 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v37.57 0 1.24
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 150 92 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.268 0.058 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 37.6 11 1
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 19 13 990 1260 21
Future Vol, veh/h 6 19 13 990 1260 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 21 14 1076 1370 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1950 699 1406 0 - 0
Stage 1 1384 - - - - -
Stage 2 566 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 56 382 481 - - -
Stage 1 198 - - - - -
Stage 2 531 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 53 377 475 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 53 - - - - -
Stage 1 187 - - - - -
Stage 2 524 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v33.79 0.69 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 47 - 152 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.179 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.8 0.5 33.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.6 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 19 972 36 39 1276
Future Vol, veh/h 8 19 972 36 39 1276
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 7 7 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 21 1057 39 42 1387
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1842 535 0 0 1103 0
Stage 1 1064 - - - - -
Stage 2 778 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 67 490 - - 629 -
Stage 1 293 - - - - -
Stage 2 413 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 59 486 - - 625 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 59 - - - - -
Stage 1 291 - - - - -
Stage 2 368 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v33.71 0 1.46
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 154 107 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.19 0.068 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 33.7 11.2 1.2
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.2 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 27 1024 149 25 1252
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 27 1024 149 25 1252
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 29 1113 162 27 1361
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 78 37 3002 1339 61 2815
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84
Sat Flow, veh/h 1156 541 3647 1585 36 3418
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 1113 162 726 662
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1715 0 1777 1585 1752 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 12.9
Prop In Lane 0.67 0.32 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 116 0 3002 1339 1511 1366
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.48 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 0 3002 1339 1511 1366
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 66.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 3.5 3.7
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 92 1275 1388
Approach Delay, s/veh 66.4 0.2 3.6
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.9 106.9 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 14.9 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.8 14.8 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 4.1
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
Future Year (2035) Without Project - PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 239 162 25 910 1282 59
Future Volume (veh/h) 239 162 25 910 1282 59
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 260 176 27 989 1393 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 219 148 66 2251 2473 1103
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1010 683 49 3320 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 437 0 516 500 1393 64
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1667 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 0.0 13.9 16.3 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.40 0.05 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 368 0 1192 1125 2473 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 1.19 0.00 0.43 0.44 0.56 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1192 1125 2473 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 7.7 8.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 108.9 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln22.1 0.0 5.4 5.5 0.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 155.9 0.0 8.8 9.3 0.8 0.1
LnGrp LOS F A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 437 1016 1457
Approach Delay, s/veh 155.9 9.1 0.7
Approach LOS F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.0 31.0 89.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.3 28.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 0.0 16.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.0
HCM 7th LOSC
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 1 10 18 3 23 8 566 8 5 677 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 8 1 10 18 3 23 8 566 8 5 677 5
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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 1 14 24 4 31 9 615 9 5 720 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 44 4 56 82 14 106 97 1192 548 93 1200 548
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 708 64 901 682 114 881 15 3450 1585 6 3474 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 0 59 0 0 334 290 9 388 337 5
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1673 0 0 1678 0 0 1848 1617 1585 1862 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.2 0.0 6.9 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.8 0.2 6.9 6.9 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.54 0.41 0.53 0.03 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 0 201 0 0 730 559 548 734 559 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.52 0.02 0.53 0.60 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 997 0 0 917 0 0 2561 2209 2165 2610 2209 2165 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 18.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 10.5 10.5 8.7 10.9 10.9 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.0 2.2 1.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.2 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 11.3 8.7 11.5 11.9 8.7 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 26 59 633 730
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 17.0 11.1 11.7
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.9 10.8 20.9 8.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 3.3 8.9 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 0.2 5.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.8
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 17 10 590 686 9
Future Vol, veh/h 1 17 10 590 686 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 18 11 641 746 10
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1091 376 758 0 - 0
Stage 1 749 - - - - -
Stage 2 342 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 622 849 - - -
Stage 1 428 - - - - -
Stage 2 691 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 205 620 846 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 205 - - - - -
Stage 1 420 - - - - -
Stage 2 689 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 11.7 0.29 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 60 - 557 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.035 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.3 0.1 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 30 561 0 29 687
Future Vol, veh/h 10 30 561 0 29 687
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 3 3 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 73 73 91 91 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 14 41 616 0 32 747
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1056 311 0 0 619 0
Stage 1 619 - - - - -
Stage 2 436 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 221 685 - - 957 -
Stage 1 499 - - - - -
Stage 2 619 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 211 683 - - 954 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 211 - - - - -
Stage 1 498 - - - - -
Stage 2 593 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 14.4 0 0.69
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 438 146 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.125 0.033 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.4 8.9 0.3
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 9 3 564 677 8
Future Vol, veh/h 5 9 3 564 677 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 0 0 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 5 10 3 613 736 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1053 372 749 0 - 0
Stage 1 740 - - - - -
Stage 2 313 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 222 625 856 - - -
Stage 1 433 - - - - -
Stage 2 714 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 219 623 853 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 219 - - - - -
Stage 1 429 - - - - -
Stage 2 712 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.99 0.09 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 19 - 375 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - 0.041 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 0 15 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 34 524 21 17 691
Future Vol, veh/h 13 34 524 21 17 691
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 8 8 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 92 92 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 17 44 570 23 18 743
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 986 293 0 0 600 0
Stage 1 578 - - - - -
Stage 2 408 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 245 704 - - 973 -
Stage 1 524 - - - - -
Stage 2 640 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 237 698 - - 965 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 237 - - - - -
Stage 1 520 - - - - -
Stage 2 625 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.15 0 0.41
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 454 86 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.134 0.019 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.2 8.8 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 30 530 39 13 692
Future Volume (veh/h) 90 30 530 39 13 692
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 50 564 41 14 752
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 173 58 2767 1234 56 2658
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Sat Flow, veh/h 1290 430 3647 1585 32 3499
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 201 0 564 41 407 359
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1777 1585 1829 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.0 7.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 5.0 0.7 7.4 7.6
Prop In Lane 0.75 0.25 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 231 0 2767 1234 1455 1259
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.28 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 0 2767 1234 1455 1259
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 0.0 3.5 3.0 3.8 3.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 1.5 0.2 2.4 2.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 62.6 0.0 3.6 3.1 4.2 4.4
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 201 605 766
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.6 3.6 4.3
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.9 98.9 21.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 9.6 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.4 5.5 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.5
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 54 71 490 689 94
Future Volume (veh/h) 79 54 71 490 689 94
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 127 87 77 533 749 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 145 99 286 1963 2730 1218
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1002 687 323 2640 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 276 334 749 102
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1261 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.9 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.9 0.0 4.8 7.2 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.40 0.28 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 245 0 1007 1242 2730 1218
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.08
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1007 1242 2730 1218
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 0.0 3.8 4.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.4 0.0 1.7 2.1 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 64.9 0.0 4.5 4.6 0.2 0.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 215 610 851
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.9 4.5 0.2
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 97.7 22.3 97.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 16.9 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 0.4 6.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.1
HCM 7th LOSB
HCM 7th TWSC
8: Driveway 1 & 133rd St 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 15 2 36 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 14 15 2 36 4 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 16 2 39 4 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 32 0 67 23
Stage 1 - - - - 23 -
Stage 2 - - - - 43 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 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 - - 1581 - 938 1053
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 979 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1581 - 937 1053
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 937 -
Stage 1 - - - - 999 -
Stage 2 - - - - 978 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.38 8.73
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 973 - - 95 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Inglewood Ave & Driveway 2 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 16 551 9 9 668
Future Vol, veh/h 14 16 551 9 9 668
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 17 599 10 10 726
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 986 304 0 0 609 0
Stage 1 604 - - - - -
Stage 2 383 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 245 692 - - 966 -
Stage 1 508 - - - - -
Stage 2 659 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 242 692 - - 966 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 242 - - - - -
Stage 1 508 - - - - -
Stage 2 651 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v15.67 0 0.22
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 370 48 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.088 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 15.7 8.8 0.1
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
10: 134th St & Driveway 3 08/16/2024
AM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 32 45 2 3 2
Future Vol, veh/h 6 32 45 2 3 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 35 49 2 3 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 51 0 - 0 98 50
Stage 1 - - - - 50 -
Stage 2 - - - - 48 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 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 1555 - - - 901 1018
Stage 1 - - - - 972 -
Stage 2 - - - - 975 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1555 - - - 897 1018
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 897 -
Stage 1 - - - - 968 -
Stage 2 - - - - 975 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.16 0 8.84
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 284 - - - 942
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.006
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 16 3 23 29 2 21 9 912 38 24 1224 13 Future Volume (veh/h) 16 3 23 29 2 21 9 912 38 24 1224 13 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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 4 32 39 3 28 10 991 41 26 1302 14 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 65 11 90 103 8 74 59 1759 810 71 1729 810
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 653 114 908 947 73 680 10 3444 1585 30 3386 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 0 70 0 0 533 468 41 702 626 14 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1674 0 0 1701 0 0 1837 1617 1585 1798 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.9 1.7 20.9 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.5 0.9 20.0 20.9 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.39 0.54 0.56 0.40 0.02 1.00 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 166 0 0 184 0 0 993 826 810 974 826 810 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.05 0.72 0.76 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 596 0 0 555 0 0 1528 1319 1293 1497 1319 1293 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 28.4 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.4 8.3 12.9 13.2 8.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.1 0.3 7.1 6.5 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.6 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 12.0 8.3 13.9 14.6 8.2 LnGrp LOS C C B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 70 1042 1342
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 29.2 11.7 14.2
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.4 13.3 41.4 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 4.6 22.9 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.0 0.3 11.6 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.0
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 27 12 960 1237 16
Future Vol, veh/h 9 27 12 960 1237 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 9 0 0 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 29 13 1043 1345 17
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1901 681 1371 0 - 0
Stage 1 1354 - - - - -
Stage 2 548 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 61 393 497 - - -
Stage 1 205 - - - - -
Stage 2 543 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 58 389 492 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 58 - - - - -
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 539 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v34.78 0.6 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 44 - 159 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.245 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.5 0.5 34.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.9 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 22 940 22 43 1252
Future Vol, veh/h 11 22 940 22 43 1252
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 73 73 91 91 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 30 1033 24 47 1361
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1807 516 0 0 1057 0
Stage 1 1033 - - - - -
Stage 2 774 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 70 504 - - 654 -
Stage 1 304 - - - - -
Stage 2 415 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 62 504 - - 654 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 62 - - - - -
Stage 1 304 - - - - -
Stage 2 368 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 39.1 0 1.5
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 150 120 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.302 0.071 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 39.1 10.9 1.2
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 16 12 958 1218 16
Future Vol, veh/h 3 16 12 958 1218 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 17 13 1041 1324 17
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1885 676 1355 0 - 0
Stage 1 1338 - - - - -
Stage 2 547 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 62 396 503 - - -
Stage 1 209 - - - - -
Stage 2 544 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 58 391 497 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 58 - - - - -
Stage 1 199 - - - - -
Stage 2 537 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v24.42 0.6 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 45 - 206 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.1 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.4 0.4 24.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 18 936 39 38 1236
Future Vol, veh/h 8 18 936 39 38 1236
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 7 7 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 77 77 92 92 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 23 1017 42 41 1329
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1771 516 0 0 1067 0
Stage 1 1024 - - - - -
Stage 2 746 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 74 504 - - 649 -
Stage 1 307 - - - - -
Stage 2 429 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 66 501 - - 645 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 66 - - - - -
Stage 1 305 - - - - -
Stage 2 386 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v32.06 0 1.33
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 166 107 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.203 0.063 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 32.1 11 1
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.2 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 26 989 145 24 1213
Future Volume (veh/h) 55 26 989 145 24 1213
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 43 1052 154 26 1318
Peak Hour Factor 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 111 52 2902 1294 60 2731
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 1160 542 3647 1585 35 3430
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 136 0 1052 154 704 640
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1715 0 1777 1585 1763 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 14.4
Prop In Lane 0.68 0.32 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165 0 2902 1294 1471 1320
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.48 0.48
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 0 2902 1294 1471 1320
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.31 0.31 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 63.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.4 4.6
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 136 1206 1344
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.2 0.1 4.5
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 103.5 103.5 16.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 16.4 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.7 13.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 5.5
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 231 156 24 877 1242 57
Future Volume (veh/h) 231 156 24 877 1242 57
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 373 252 26 953 1350 62
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 219 148 66 2257 2473 1103
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1011 683 49 3329 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 626 0 499 480 1350 62
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1677 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 0.0 13.3 15.4 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.60 0.40 0.05 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 368 0 1198 1125 2473 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 1.70 0.00 0.42 0.43 0.55 0.06
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1198 1125 2473 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 7.6 7.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 327.7 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln44.5 0.0 5.1 5.2 0.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 374.7 0.0 8.6 9.1 0.7 0.1
LnGrp LOS F A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 626 979 1412
Approach Delay, s/veh 374.7 8.9 0.7
Approach LOS F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.0 31.0 89.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.4 28.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.3 0.0 15.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 80.9
HCM 7th LOSF
HCM 7th TWSC
8: Driveway 1 & 133rd St 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 10 2 30 3 1
Future Vol, veh/h 55 10 2 30 3 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 60 11 2 33 3 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 71 0 102 65
Stage 1 - - - - 65 -
Stage 2 - - - - 37 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 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 - - 1530 - 896 999
Stage 1 - - - - 957 -
Stage 2 - - - - 986 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1530 - 895 999
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 895 -
Stage 1 - - - - 957 -
Stage 2 - - - - 984 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.46 8.94
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 919 - - 113 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Inglewood Ave & Driveway 2 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 11 959 6 6 1212
Future Vol, veh/h 9 11 959 6 6 1212
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 12 1042 7 7 1317
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1717 524 0 0 1049 0
Stage 1 1046 - - - - -
Stage 2 672 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 81 498 - - 659 -
Stage 1 299 - - - - -
Stage 2 469 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 80 498 - - 659 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 80 - - - - -
Stage 1 299 - - - - -
Stage 2 462 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 33.5 0 0.21
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 148 18 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.147 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 33.5 10.5 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - D B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
10: 134th St & Driveway 3 08/16/2024
PM Existing with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 73 25 1 2 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 73 25 1 2 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 79 27 1 2 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 28 0 - 0 116 28
Stage 1 - - - - 28 -
Stage 2 - - - - 88 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 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 1585 - - - 880 1048
Stage 1 - - - - 995 -
Stage 2 - - - - 935 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1585 - - - 878 1048
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 878 -
Stage 1 - - - - 992 -
Stage 2 - - - - 935 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.38 0 8.89
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 94 - - - 928
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.004
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 2 12 19 7 24 9 594 9 6 707 9
Future Volume (veh/h) 10 2 12 19 7 24 9 594 9 6 707 9
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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 2 13 21 8 26 10 646 10 7 768 10 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 44 8 53 73 28 91 95 1252 576 92 1260 576
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 712 129 842 647 246 801 15 3446 1585 8 3467 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 0 0 55 0 0 350 306 10 415 360 10 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1683 0 0 1694 0 0 1844 1617 1585 1859 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.2 0.0 7.5 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 0.2 7.5 7.5 0.2 Prop In Lane 0.42 0.50 0.38 0.47 0.03 1.00 0.02 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 105 0 0 192 0 0 760 588 576 764 588 576 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.52 0.02 0.54 0.61 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 980 0 0 904 0 0 2491 2157 2114 2537 2157 2114 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 18.4 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 10.3 10.3 8.4 10.7 10.7 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.0 2.4 2.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.6 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 10.7 11.0 8.4 11.3 11.8 8.4 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 26 55 666 785
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 17.6 10.8 11.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 10.7 22.0 8.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 3.2 9.5 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.5 0.2 5.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.6
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 19 11 618 716 11
Future Vol, veh/h 3 19 11 618 716 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 3 0 0 3
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 3 21 12 672 778 12
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1141 392 793 0 - 0
Stage 1 781 - - - - -
Stage 2 360 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 194 607 824 - - -
Stage 1 412 - - - - -
Stage 2 677 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 190 605 821 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 190 - - - - -
Stage 1 403 - - - - -
Stage 2 675 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v13.15 0.33 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 63 - 466 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 0.2 13.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 35 589 0 30 718
Future Vol, veh/h 11 35 589 0 30 718
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 3 3 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 12 38 640 0 33 780
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1099 323 0 0 643 0
Stage 1 643 - - - - -
Stage 2 455 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 207 673 - - 938 -
Stage 1 485 - - - - -
Stage 2 605 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 197 671 - - 935 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 197 - - - - -
Stage 1 484 - - - - -
Stage 2 578 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.57 0 0.72
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 426 144 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.117 0.035 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.6 9 0.4
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 11 4 592 707 12
Future Vol, veh/h 7 11 4 592 707 12
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 4 0 0 4
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 8 12 4 643 768 13
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1103 388 786 0 - 0
Stage 1 772 - - - - -
Stage 2 330 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 206 610 829 - - -
Stage 1 416 - - - - -
Stage 2 700 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 203 608 826 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 203 - - - - -
Stage 1 412 - - - - -
Stage 2 698 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v16.16 0.12 0
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 24 - 342 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.057 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 0.1 16.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 35 551 22 18 722
Future Vol, veh/h 14 35 551 22 18 722
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 8 8 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 38 599 24 20 785
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1038 307 0 0 631 0
Stage 1 607 - - - - -
Stage 2 432 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 226 688 - - 948 -
Stage 1 507 - - - - -
Stage 2 623 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 219 683 - - 940 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 219 - - - - -
Stage 1 503 - - - - -
Stage 2 606 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v14.68 0 0.44
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 425 88 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.125 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 14.7 8.9 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.1 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 31 558 40 14 724
Future Volume (veh/h) 92 31 558 40 14 724
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 34 607 43 15 787
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 121 41 2906 1296 59 2785
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 1280 435 3647 1585 34 3491
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 607 43 425 377
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1777 1585 1823 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 0.0 4.5 0.6 0.0 6.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 0.0 4.5 0.6 6.4 6.6
Prop In Lane 0.74 0.25 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 0 2906 1296 1522 1322
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.28 0.28
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 374 0 2906 1296 1522 1322
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.3 0.0 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.8 1.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 63.2 0.0 2.6 2.1 3.0 3.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 135 650 802
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.2 2.5 3.1
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 103.6 103.6 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 8.6 11.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 5.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.0
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 57 73 517 720 100
Future Volume (veh/h) 82 57 73 517 720 100
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 89 62 79 562 783 109
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 106 74 292 2049 2863 1277
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 993 692 315 2628 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 286 355 783 109
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1696 0 1241 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.6 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.6 0.0 4.2 6.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.41 0.28 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 1038 1303 2863 1277
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1038 1303 2863 1277
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.6 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.9 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.0 0.0 1.3 1.7 0.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 62.5 0.0 3.3 3.4 0.2 0.1
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 152 641 892
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.5 3.4 0.2
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 102.2 17.8 102.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 12.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.1 0.3 6.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.0
HCM 7th LOSA
HCM 7th TWSC
8: Driveway 1 & 133rd St 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 15 2 42 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 15 15 2 42 4 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 16 16 2 46 4 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 33 0 74 24
Stage 1 - - - - 24 -
Stage 2 - - - - 50 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 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 - - 1579 - 929 1052
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 972 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1579 - 928 1052
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 928 -
Stage 1 - - - - 998 -
Stage 2 - - - - 971 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.33 8.75
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 966 - - 82 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 - - 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Inglewood Ave & Driveway 2 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 16 580 9 9 698
Future Vol, veh/h 14 16 580 9 9 698
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 15 17 630 10 10 759
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1034 320 0 0 640 0
Stage 1 635 - - - - -
Stage 2 399 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 228 676 - - 940 -
Stage 1 490 - - - - -
Stage 2 647 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 225 676 - - 940 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 225 - - - - -
Stage 1 490 - - - - -
Stage 2 638 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v16.38 0 0.23
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 349 46 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.093 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 16.4 8.9 0.1
HCM Lane LOS - - C A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
10: 134th St & Driveway 3 08/16/2024
AM Future with project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 34 47 2 3 2
Future Vol, veh/h 6 34 47 2 3 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 37 51 2 3 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 53 0 - 0 102 52
Stage 1 - - - - 52 -
Stage 2 - - - - 50 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 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 1552 - - - 896 1015
Stage 1 - - - - 970 -
Stage 2 - - - - 972 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1552 - - - 892 1015
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 892 -
Stage 1 - - - - 966 -
Stage 2 - - - - 972 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 1.1 0 8.86
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 270 - - - 938
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.006
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Inglewood Ave & 132nd St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 4 26 30 7 22 10 953 39 25 1272 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 4 26 30 7 22 10 953 39 25 1272 18 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-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 4 28 33 8 24 11 1036 42 27 1383 20 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 61 12 82 89 22 65 58 1832 845 69 1802 845
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Sat Flow, veh/h 665 127 886 870 211 633 11 3436 1585 30 3381 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 0 0 65 0 0 556 491 42 745 665 20 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1678 0 0 1713 0 0 1830 1617 1585 1794 1617 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.9 2.6 22.7 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 13.8 14.2 0.9 22.0 22.7 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.40 0.53 0.51 0.37 0.02 1.00 0.04 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 154 0 0 176 0 0 1028 862 845 1010 862 845 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.05 0.74 0.77 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 577 0 0 540 0 0 1471 1274 1249 1446 1274 1249 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 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 29.7 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 10.9 7.8 12.7 12.9 7.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.3 0.3 7.7 7.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 31.0 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 11.5 7.8 13.9 14.6 7.7 LnGrp LOS C C B B A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 53 65 1089 1430
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.0 30.5 11.2 14.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.2 13.2 44.2 12.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 22.0 55.0 24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.2 4.5 24.7 4.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.5 0.2 12.5 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.7
HCM 7th LOS B
HCM 7th TWSC
2: Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 30 13 1003 1286 19
Future Vol, veh/h 12 30 13 1003 1286 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 9 0 0 9
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 33 14 1090 1398 21
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1980 708 1427 0 - 0
Stage 1 1407 - - - - -
Stage 2 573 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 54 377 472 - - -
Stage 1 192 - - - - -
Stage 2 527 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 374 468 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 - - - - -
Stage 1 182 - - - - -
Stage 2 523 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v45.94 0.7 0
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 46 - 132 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.345 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.9 0.5 45.9 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A E - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 1.4 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
3: Inglewood Ave & 133rd St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 28 982 23 44 1301
Future Vol, veh/h 12 28 982 23 44 1301
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 30 1067 25 48 1414
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1870 534 0 0 1092 0
Stage 1 1067 - - - - -
Stage 2 803 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 64 491 - - 635 -
Stage 1 292 - - - - -
Stage 2 401 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 56 491 - - 635 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 56 - - - - -
Stage 1 292 - - - - -
Stage 2 352 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v39.41 0 1.62
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 147 118 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.295 0.075 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 39.4 11.1 1.3
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.2 -
HCM 7th TWSC
4: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 19 13 1001 1266 21
Future Vol, veh/h 6 19 13 1001 1266 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 14 0 0 14
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - 25
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 7 21 14 1088 1376 23
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1962 702 1413 0 - 0
Stage 1 1390 - - - - -
Stage 2 572 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 55 381 478 - - -
Stage 1 196 - - - - -
Stage 2 528 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 375 472 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 - - - - -
Stage 1 185 - - - - -
Stage 2 521 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v34.33 0.7 0
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 46 - 150 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.182 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.9 0.5 34.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.6 - -
HCM 7th TWSC
5: Inglewood Ave & 134th St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 19 978 40 39 1285
Future Vol, veh/h 9 19 978 40 39 1285
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 7 7 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 25 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 21 1063 43 42 1397
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1853 539 0 0 1114 0
Stage 1 1070 - - - - -
Stage 2 783 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 65 487 - - 623 -
Stage 1 291 - - - - -
Stage 2 411 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 58 484 - - 619 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 58 - - - - -
Stage 1 289 - - - - -
Stage 2 365 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 36.7 0 1.48
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 144 106 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.212 0.069 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 36.7 11.2 1.2
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0.2 -
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 57 27 1034 149 25 1263
Future Volume (veh/h) 57 27 1034 149 25 1263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 29 1124 162 27 1373
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 78 37 3002 1339 61 2815
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84
Sat Flow, veh/h 1156 541 3647 1585 35 3418
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 1124 162 732 668
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1715 0 1777 1585 1751 1617
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 13.1
Prop In Lane 0.67 0.32 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 116 0 3002 1339 1510 1366
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.37 0.12 0.48 0.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 372 0 3002 1339 1510 1366
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.0 2.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 66.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 3.5 3.7
LnGrp LOS E A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 92 1286 1400
Approach Delay, s/veh 66.4 0.2 3.6
Approach LOS E A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.9 106.9 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 83.5 26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 15.1 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.0 15.1 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 4.1
HCM 7th LOS A
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: Inglewood Ave & 135th St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 239 162 25 920 1293 55
Future Volume (veh/h) 239 162 25 920 1293 55
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 260 176 27 1000 1405 60
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 219 148 65 2252 2473 1103
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1010 683 48 3322 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 437 0 522 505 1405 60
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1697 0 1668 1617 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 0.0 14.1 16.6 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.59 0.40 0.05 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 368 0 1193 1125 2473 1103
V/C Ratio(X) 1.19 0.00 0.44 0.45 0.57 0.05
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 1193 1125 2473 1103
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 7.7 8.1 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 108.9 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln22.1 0.0 5.5 5.6 0.3 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 155.9 0.0 8.9 9.4 0.8 0.1
LnGrp LOS F A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 437 1027 1465
Approach Delay, s/veh 155.9 9.1 0.8
Approach LOS F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.0 31.0 89.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 83.5 26.0 83.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.6 28.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.0 0.0 16.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 26.8
HCM 7th LOSC
HCM 7th TWSC
8: Driveway 1 & 133rd St 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 10 2 37 3 1
Future Vol, veh/h 57 10 2 37 3 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 62 11 2 40 3 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 73 0 112 67
Stage 1 - - - - 67 -
Stage 2 - - - - 45 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 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 - - 1527 - 885 996
Stage 1 - - - - 955 -
Stage 2 - - - - 978 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1527 - 883 996
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 883 -
Stage 1 - - - - 955 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0.38 8.98
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 909 - - 92 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 9 - - 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
9: Inglewood Ave & Driveway 2 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 11 1003 6 6 1260
Future Vol, veh/h 9 11 1003 6 6 1260
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 10 12 1090 7 7 1370
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1791 548 0 0 1097 0
Stage 1 1093 - - - - -
Stage 2 698 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 72 480 - - 632 -
Stage 1 283 - - - - -
Stage 2 455 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 71 480 - - 632 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 71 - - - - -
Stage 1 283 - - - - -
Stage 2 447 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v37.16 0 0.23
HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 133 17 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.163 0.01 -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - - 37.2 10.8 0.2
HCM Lane LOS - - E B A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0 -
HCM 7th TWSC
10: 134th St & Driveway 3 08/16/2024
PM Future with Project Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 75 27 1 2 1
Future Vol, veh/h 4 75 27 1 2 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 82 29 1 2 1
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 30 0 - 0 120 30
Stage 1 - - - - 30 -
Stage 2 - - - - 90 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 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 1582 - - - 875 1045
Stage 1 - - - - 993 -
Stage 2 - - - - 933 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1582 - - - 873 1045
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 873 -
Stage 1 - - - - 990 -
Stage 2 - - - - 933 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0.37 0 8.91
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 91 - - - 924
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.004
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 0 - - 8.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0
Traffic Impact Assessment
37 Appendix D – Cumulative Projects List
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
1 210 Detached
ADU 5170 W 131st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 2 210 Detached
ADU 5107 W 129th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 3 210 Detached
ADU 5328 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 4 210 Detached
ADU 4840 W 133rd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 5 210 Detached
ADU 4833 W 134th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 6 210 Detached
ADU 4829 W 134th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 7 210 Detached
ADU 5100 W 139th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 8 210 Detached
ADU 5013 W 132nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 9 210 Detached
ADU 4829 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 10 210 Detached
ADU 4881 W 139th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 11 210 Detached
ADU 5522 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 12 210 Detached
ADU 5521 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 13 210 Detached
ADU 5519 W 120th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 14 210 Detached
ADU 5506 W 117th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 15 210 Detached
ADU 5322 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 16 210 Detached
ADU 5501 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 17 210 Detached
ADU 5152 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 18 210 Detached
ADU 13511 S Shoup Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 19 210 Detached
ADU 5445 W 117th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 20 210 Detached
ADU 5403 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 21 210 Detached
ADU 5448 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 22 210 Detached
ADU 4823 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 23 210 Detached
ADU 5361 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 24 210 Detached
ADU 4871 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 25 210 Detached
ADU 5173 W 133rd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 26 210 Detached
ADU 5318 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 27 210 Detached
ADU 5156 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 28 210 Detached
ADU 5443 W 120th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 29 210 Detached
ADU 4817 W 134th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 30 210 Detached
ADU 5036 W 123rd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 31 210 Detached
ADU 5027 W 135th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 32 210 Detached
ADU 5011 W 122nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 33 210 Detached
ADU 4869 W 142nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 34 210 Detached
ADU 13518 Ocean Gate Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
No. ITE # Project
Name Address Unit Qty Daily
35 210 Detached
ADU 5501 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 36 210 Detached
ADU 5425 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 37 210 Detached
ADU 5319 W 123rd Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 38 210 Detached
ADU 4929 W 129th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 39 210 Detached
ADU 5322 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 40 210 Detached
ADU 5401 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 41 210 Detached
ADU 5007 W 131st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 42 210 Detached
ADU 5118 W 124th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 43 210 Detached
ADU 5508 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 44 210 Detached
ADU 4847 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 45 210 Detached
ADU 5017 W 122nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 46 210 Detached
ADU 5455 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 47 210 Detached
ADU 5001 W 138th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 48 210 Detached
ADU 5103 Stacy Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 49 210 Detached
ADU 4812 W 138th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 50 210 Detached
ADU 4818 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 51 210 Detached
ADU 4875 W 138th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 52 210 Detached
ADU 5026 W 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 53 210 Detached
ADU 12108 S La Cienega Boulevard, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 54 210 Detached
ADU 5106 W 131st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 55 210 Detached
ADU 4864 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 56 210 Detached
ADU 4871 W 137th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 57 210 Detached
ADU 13100 S Shoup Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 58 210 Detached
ADU 4852 131st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 59 210 Detached
ADU 5506 W 123rd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 60 210 Detached
ADU 5319 W 122nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 61 210 Detached
ADU 14127 S Shoup Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 62 210 Detached
ADU 5158 W 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 63 210 Detached
ADU 4817 W 134th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 64 210 Detached
ADU 13811 S Inglewood Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 65 210 Detached
ADU 5354 W 118th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 66 210 Detached
ADU 5103 W 137th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 67 210 Detached
ADU 5135 W 138th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 68 210 Detached
ADU 5424 W 120th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 69 210 Detached
ADU 5164 W 139th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 70 210 Detached
ADU 5501 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 71 210 Detached
ADU 5345 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 72 210 Detached
ADU 5017 W 123rd Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 73 210 Detached
ADU 5239 W 120th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 74 210 Detached
ADU 5028 W 135th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 75 210 Detached
ADU 5407 W 117th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 76 210 Detached
ADU 4828 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 77 210 Detached
ADU 14107 Ocean Gate Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 78 210 Detached
ADU 5526 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 79 210 Detached
ADU 4907 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 80 210 Detached
ADU 5034 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 81 210 Detached
ADU 5106 W 136th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 82 210 Detached
ADU 4916 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 83 210 Detached
ADU 4928 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 84 210 Detached
ADU 5012 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 85 210 Detached
ADU 5045 W 126th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 86 210 Detached
ADU 4848 W 135th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 87 210 Detached
ADU 4844 W 132nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 88 215 Attached
ADU 5540 W 124th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 89 210 Detached
ADU 5102 W 123rd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 90 210 Detached
ADU 4847 W 139th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 91 210 Detached
ADU 5245 Pacific Concourse Drive, Los Angeles CA 90045 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 92 210 Detached
ADU 5315 W 126th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 93 210 Detached
ADU 5037 W 124th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 94 210 Detached
ADU 5408 W 118th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 95 210 Detached
ADU 4939 W 138th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 96 210 Detached
ADU 4914 W 132nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 97 215 Attached
ADU 5256 W 123rd Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 98 215 Attached
ADU 5247 W 124th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 99 210 Detached
ADU 5445 W 117th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 100 210 Detached
ADU 4819 W 137th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 101 210 Detached
ADU 5342 W 126th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 102 210 Detached
ADU 5230 Pacific Concourse Drive, Los Angeles CA 90045 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 103 210 Detached
ADU 11819 Judah Avenue, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 104 210 Detached
ADU 5133 W 131st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 105 210 Detached
ADU 5447 W 123rd Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 106 210+215
Attached
and
Detached
ADU 5313 W 120th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 17 0.33 0.85 1.18 0.92 0.59 1.51 107 210 Detached
ADU 4902 W 132nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 108 210+215
Attached
and
Detached
ADU 14113 S Shoup Avenue, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 17 0.33 0.85 1.18 0.92 0.59 1.51 109 210 Detached
ADU 4841 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 110 210 Detached
ADU 5523 W 119th Place, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 111 210 Detached
ADU 4943 W 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 112 210 Detached
ADU 5457 W 117th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 113 215 Detached
ADU 5131 W 140th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 114 210 Detached
ADU 5179 W 137th Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 115 215 Detached
ADU 4871 W 137th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 116 210 Detached
ADU 4864 129th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 117 210 Detached
ADU 5443 W 120th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 118 210 Detached
ADU 5257 W 123rd Place, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 119 215 Attached
ADU 4881 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 120 210 Detached
ADU 4861 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 121 210 Detached
ADU 4841 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 122 210 Detached
ADU 5442 W 119th Street, Inglewood CA 90304 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 123 210 Detached
ADU 4918 W 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 124 215 Attached
ADU 4877 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 7 0.15 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.25 0.57 125 210 Detached
ADU 5146 W 132nd Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 126 210 Detached
ADU 5123 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 127 210 Detached
ADU 4903 W 141st Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 128 210 Detached
ADU 5002 W 129th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 129 210 Detached
ADU 4906 W 130th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 130 210 Detached
ADU 5030 W 140th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 131 210 Detached
ADU 5156 W 134th Street, Hawthorne CA 90250 DU 1 9 0.18 0.52 0.7 0.59 0.35 0.94 Total 1,234 24 67 91 76 45 122
Traffic Impact Assessment
38 Appendix E – VMT Calculator
PROJECT NAME McDonalds
LOCATION
ANALYSIS YEAR 2024
Hawthorne
Project Land Uses & Intensities
Project Presumptions of Less than Significant Impact
Within a 1/2 mile of Major Transit Stop
Less than 110 Trips per Day
Total Emissions Estimates
Pollutant Mobile Mitigation With Mitigation Non Mobile Total CO (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
ROG (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
NOX (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
SOX (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
PM2.5 (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
PM10 (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 (mt/year) 0 0 0 0 0
ITE Trip Gen Land Use Qty. Units
Per Capita/
Employee
VMT
VMT With
Mitigation
Total
VMT Threshold Significant Impact
934 - Fast-Food Restaurant w/ D.T. 3.781 1,000 Sq Ft 15.74 15.74 616.2 18.67 No Total 15.74 15.74 616.2
Land Use Parcel Selection
APN: 404-201-102-6
934 - Fast-Food Restaurant w/ D.T.
Land Use Presumptions of Less than Significant Impact
Affordable Housing
Local Serving Land Use
Metric Project Mitigation With Mitigation
HBW VMT/Emp 15.7 0 15.7
Daily Trips 1781 0 0
Land Use Metrics
Land Use Emission Estimates
Pollutant Project Mitigation With
Mitigation
Non
Mobile Total
CO (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
ROG (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
NOX (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
SOX (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
PM2.5 (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
PM10 (lb/day) 0 0 0 0 0
CO2 (mt/year) 0 0 0 0 0
HBW VMT/Emp
TDM Input Result
No TDM strategies selected.
Selected TDM Regional Avg: 21.97
Threshold (15% below Average): 18.67
Traffic Impact Assessment
39 Appendix F: CA MUTCD PHB Guidelines
1959
0 L = 60 ft
LID REPORT
McDonald’s 4-5205
13324 Inglewood Ave, Hawthorne, CA
August 2024
PREPARED FOR:
McDonalds USA, LLC
110 N Carpenter
Chicago, IL 60607
PREPARED BY:
Amelia Beltran, PE
245 E 3rd St., Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 549-2200
Copyright © 2024 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
McDonalds 4-5205
Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my jurisdiction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathered the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Owner’s Name: Scott Wilkeson
Owner’s Title: Area Construction Manager
Company: McDonalds USA, LCC
Address: 110 N Carpenter, Chicago, IL 60607
Email: [email protected]
Telephone No: (951) 323-3002
Signature: Date:
Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
McDonalds 4-5205
Engineer’s Certification
Preparer (Engineer) Certification
Engineer’s Name: Amelia Beltran, PE
Engineer’s Title: Professional Engineer
Company: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Address: 245 E 3rd St, Long Beach, CA 90802
Email: [email protected]
Telephone No: (562) 549-2200
I hereby certify that this Low Impact Development Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order WQ 2015-0075, of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Engineer’s
Signature Date
Place
Stamp
Here
Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
McDonalds 4-5205
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1. Project Description................................................................................... 1
1.1. Project Category................................................................................................1
1.2. Project Description............................................................................................2
1.3. Hydromodification Analysis...............................................................................4
1.4. Property Ownership/Management ...................................................................5
2. Best Management Practices (BMPs)......................................................... 6
2.1. Site Design ........................................................................................................6
2.2. BMP Selection ...................................................................................................8
2.2.1. Infiltration BMPs.........................................................................................8
2.2.2. Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs (N/A) ......................................................9
2.2.3. Alternative Compliance BMPs....................................................................10
2.2.4. Treatment Control BMPs...........................................................................12
2.2.5. Hydromodification Control BMPs...............................................................13
2.2.6. Non-structural Source Control BMPs..........................................................13
2.2.7. Structural Source Control BMPs.................................................................14 Attachments
Attachment A ...... ....................................................................................................................... Calculations Attachment B....... ................................................................................................Geotechnical Investigation Attachment C....... ........................................................................ Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Attachment D ...... ..................................................................................................................................Plans Attachment E....... ......................................................................................................Supporting Documents Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1. PROJECT CATEGORY
Category YES NO
1. Development a of a new project equal to 1 acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area b
2. Development a of a new industrial park with 10,000 square feet or more of surface area c
3. Development a of a new commercial mall with 10,000 square feet or more surface area c
4. Development a of a new retail gasoline outlet with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c
5. Development a of a new restaurant (SIC 5812) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c
6. Development a of a new parking lot with either 5,000 ft2 or more of impervious area b or with 25 or more parking spaces
7. Development a of a new automotive service facility (SIC 5013, 5014, 5511, 5541, 7532- 7534 and 7536-7539) with 5,000 square feet or more of surface area c
8. Projects located in or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to a Significant Ecological Area (SEA),d where the development will:
a. Discharge stormwater runoff that is likely to impact a sensitive biological species or habitat; and
b. Create 2,500 square feet or more of impervious area b
9. Redevelopment e of 5,000 square feet or more in one of the categories listed above If yes, list redevelopment category here: 6
10. Redevelopment e of 10,000 square feet or more to a Single Family Home, without a change in landuse.
a Development includes any construction or demolition activity, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation or any other activity that results in land disturbance.
b Surfaces that do not allow stormwater runoff to percolate into the ground. Typical impervious surfaces include: concrete, asphalt, roofing materials, etc.
c The surface area is the total footprint of an area. Not to include the cumulative area above or below the ground surface. d An area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and would be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. Also, an area designated by the City as approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. e Land-disturbing activities that result in the creation, addition, or replacement of a certain amount of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain the original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of facility, nor does it include modifications to existing single family structures, or emergency construction activities required to immediately protect public health and safety.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Project Area (ft2): 38,298
Total Project Area (Ac): 0.88
Total Disturbed Area (Ac): 0.88
EXISTING IMPERVIOUSNESS: 99 %
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUSNESS: 86%
NEW IMPERVIOUSNESS (AC): 0
REPLACED IMPERVIOUSNESS (AC): 0.76
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
DRAINAGE
PATTERNS/CONNECTIONS
Existing:
The entirety of the existing 4.32 acres of the project site generally sheetflows to the north and east toward West 33rd Street and South Inglewood Avenue. Runoff eventually flows south along South Inglewood Avenue until in enters an existing City owned catch basin near the intersection at W 134th Street. The existing city connects to a Los Angeles County owned storm drain line which eventually discharges to the Dominguez Channel and eventually the Pacific Ocean. There are no existing BMP features along the project.
The receiving waterbody and downstream waterbodies have the following impairments per the most recent California Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list:
• Dominguez Channel: Copper, Indicator Bacteria, Lead, Toxicity, Zing
• Dominguez Channel Estuary: Benthic Community Effects, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane (tissue), Chrysene, Copper, DDT, Indicator Bacteria, Lead, PCBs,
Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Toxicity
Proposed:
The project proposes to generally match drainage patterns and areas to that of existing conditions. Runoff will be collected in proposed catch basins in local low points throughout the site such that runoff can be routed to the proposed underground detention system (BMP 2). Runoff will then be treated in a proposed biofiltration system (BMP 1) before being pumped into the existing City owned catch basin near the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and W 134th Street.
NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed development will be a new McDonalds restaurant and drive-thru. Other improvements include ADA paths, driveways, Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
entrances/exits, sidewalks, dry and wet utilities. The proposed project consists of 2 drainage areas. DMA A consists of 0.87 acres and makes up majority of the proposed project and will be routed to the proposed BMPs. DMA B consist of 0.01 ac and makes up a de-minimis area near the northwest corner of the site. This DMA cannot be reliably collected and routed to the proposed BMPs.
OFFSITE RUNON
There is no runon at the project site.
UTILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INFORMATION
There are no existing storm drain utilities within the project site.
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREAS
(SEAS)
N/A
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
1.3. HYDROMODIFICATION ANALYSIS
DOES THE PROPOSED PROJECT FALL INTO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES? CHECK YES/NO. YES NO
1. Project is a redevelopment that decreases the effective impervious area compared to the pre-project conditions.
Describe:
The project is proposing to decrease the overall imperviousness from 99% to 86% by increasing landscaped areas throughout the project.
2. Project is a redevelopment that increases the infiltration capacity of pervious areas compared to the pre-project conditions.
Describe:
3. Project discharges directly or via a storm drain to a sump, lake, area under tidal influence, into a waterway that has a 100-year peak flow (Q100) of 25,000 cfs or more.
Describe:
4. Project discharges directly or via a storm drain into concrete or otherwise engineered (not natural) channels (e.g., channelized or armored with rip rap, shotcrete, etc.), which, in turn, discharge into receiving water that is not susceptible to hydromodification impacts.
Describe:
HYDROMODIFICATION ANALYSIS
No hydromodification analysis is required for this project.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
1.4. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT
The project site is owned by McDonalds USA, LLC. Proposed BMPs and storm drain infrastructure will be maintained, operated, and funded by McDonalds USA, LLC.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
2.1. SITE DESIGN
85TH PERCENTILE, 24-
HOUR STORM DEPTH
The 85th percentile is approximately 0.95 inch using Los Angeles County 85th percentile precipitation isohyetal Hydrology Maps. See LA County Hydrology Map in Appendix E.
SITE DESIGN 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. Per the “Geotechnical Exploration Report” dated June 28, 2024 by Leighton, design infiltration rate at the facility is 0.01 in/hr. Therefore, infiltration BMPs are infeasible at the site. The project will implement biofiltration BMPs to treat stormwater quality volume.
BMP LIST
Table 2.1.1: DMA Designation, SWQDv and BMP Assessment
DMA
DESIGNATION
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
(SF)
ACREAGE
(AC)
STORM
WATER
QUALITY
DESIGN
VOLUME
(SWQDV,
CF)
WATER QUALITY
FLOW RATE (CFS)
BMP TYPE
BMP 2
VOLUME
SIZE
PROVIDED
(CF)
BMP 1
BIOFILTRATION
FLOW RATE
PROVIDED
(CFS)
A 37,689 0.87 2368 0.28
Biofiltration
(BMP 1) with
detention
(BMP 2)
upstream
3667 0.46
Total 37,689 0.87 2368 0.28 3667 0.46
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
POTENTIAL STORMWATER POLLUTANTS
Potential pollutants of concern from Table 7-3 per the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Standards Manual include the following for Commercial and Industrial land use:
• Suspended Solids
• Total Phosphorus
• Total Nitrogen
• Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
• Total Copper
• Total Lead
• Total Zinc
POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROMODIFICATION ANALYSIS
No hydromodification analysis is required for this project.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2.2. BMP SELECTION
2.2.1. INFILTRATION BMPS
NAME
INCLUDED
Bioretention without underdrains
Infiltration Trench
Infiltration Basin
Drywell
Proprietary Subsurface Infiltration Gallery
Permeable Pavement (concrete, asphalt, pavers)
Other:
Other:
DESCRIPTION Per the project’s Geotechnical Exploration Report, the project’s soils are not suitable for infiltration. The design infiltration rate based on percolation testing and factors of safety is 0.01 in/hr which is less than the minimum 0.3 in/hr required for infiltration BMPs.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2.2.2. RAINWATER HARVEST AND USE BMPS (N/A)
Drywell infiltration is proposed for LID compliance. There are no Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs planned for the Project.
NAME INCLUDED
Above-ground cisterns and basins
Underground detention
Other:
Other:
Other:
DESCRIPTION Capture and Re-Use was deemed infeasible.
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2.2.3. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE BMPS
BIOFILTRATION BMPS
(If Infiltration BMPs and Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs are Infeasible)
NAME INCLUDED
Bioretention with underdrains (i.e. planter box, rain garden, etc.) Constructed Wetland
Vegetated Swale
Vegetated Filter Strip
Tree-Well Filter
Other: Proprietary Biofiltration
Other:
DESCRIPTION The project is proposing to implement a Modular Wetland System (BMP 1) which is a proprietary biofiltration BMP. The MWS has been sized to treat 1.5 times the water quality flow rate for DMA A. Per the LA County MS4 permit,
1.5 times the SWQDv has been provided upstream of the MWS in an underground detention system (BMP 2). Runoff will enter the MWS unit to the inlet bay where the water quality flow will be pretreated in a filter and then treated in the biofiltration media. The MWS unit is on the State Water Board’s approved list for full-trash capture devices. Treated flow and overflows bypassing via an internal weir will discharge via the outlet bay to a proposed sump. The proposed sump will discharge the project’s flows to the existing catch basin.
OFFSITE BMPS (N/A)
(If Infiltration BMPs, Rainwater Harvest and Use BMPs, and Biofiltration BMPs are Infeasible)
NAME INCLUDED
Offsite Infiltration
Ground Water Replenishment Projects
Offsite Project - Retrofit Existing Development
Regional Storm Water Mitigation Program
Other:
Other:
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
DESCRIPTION N/A
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2.2.4. TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS
NAME
INCLUDED
Media Filter
Filter Insert
CDS Unit
Other:
Other:
DESCRIPTION N/A
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Hydromodification Control BMPs
NAME INCLUDED
Infiltration System
Above-ground Cistern
Above-ground Basin
Underground Detention
Other:
Other:
DESCRIPTION
N/A
2.2.5. NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
NAME
CHECK ONE
Included Not Applicable
Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants
Activity Restrictions
Common Area Landscape Management
Common Area Litter Control
Housekeeping of Loading Docks
Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
2.2.6. STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS
NAME
CHECK ONE
Included Not Applicable
Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage
Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction
Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to
reduce pollution introduction
Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation
Loading docks
Maintenance bays
Vehicle wash areas
Outdoor processing areas
Equipment wash areas/racks
Fueling areas
Hillside landscaping
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Attachment A
Calculations
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: //orafp01/CA_ORA/ORA_LDEV/McDonalds/194015042 - Hawthorne (4-5205)/Reports/HH and Water Quality/4. HH Calculations/Hydrocalc/ Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name MCD HAWTHORNE
Subarea ID DMA A
Area (ac) 0.87
Flow Path Length (ft) 126.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.0214
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95
Percent Impervious 0.87
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.4092
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.796
Time of Concentration (min) 10.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2834
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.2834
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0544
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 2368.4214
Peak Flow Hydrologic Analysis
File location: //orafp01/CA_ORA/ORA_LDEV/McDonalds/194015042 - Hawthorne (4-5205)/Reports/HH and Water Quality/4. HH Calculations/Hydrocalc/ Version: HydroCalc 1.0.3
Input Parameters
Project Name MCD HAWTHORNE
Subarea ID DMA B
Area (ac) 0.01
Flow Path Length (ft) 10.0
Flow Path Slope (vft/hft) 0.1
85th Percentile Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95
Percent Impervious 0.32
Soil Type 13
Design Storm Frequency 85th percentile storm
Fire Factor 0
LID True
Output Results
Modeled (85th percentile storm) Rainfall Depth (in) 0.95 Peak Intensity (in/hr) 0.5668
Undeveloped Runoff Coefficient (Cu) 0.1
Developed Runoff Coefficient (Cd) 0.356
Time of Concentration (min) 5.0
Clear Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.002
Burned Peak Flow Rate (cfs) 0.002
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (ac-ft) 0.0003
24-Hr Clear Runoff Volume (cu-ft) 12.1752
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW
STANDARD DETAIL
STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-8-16-V
FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP
LEFT END VIEW
INSTALLATION NOTES
SITE SPECIFIC DATA
1.0 _____ (CFS)
* PRELIMINARY ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PEDESTRIAN
2.1 GPM/SF
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.
FOR STORMTECH
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
VISIT OUR APP
SiteAssist
IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF THE SC-310 SYSTEM
1. STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS.
2. STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".
3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS.
STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: · STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. · BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. · BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR.
4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS.
5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE.
6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 6" (150 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS.
7. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2" (20-50 mm).
8. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER.
9. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF.
NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
1. STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".
2. THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-310 & SC-740 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: · NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. · NO RUBBER TIRED LOADERS, DUMP TRUCKS, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". · WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE".
3. FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING.
USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY.
CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-800-821-6710 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.
SC-310 STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-310.
2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE ARCH-SHAPED AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT-MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE COPOLYMERS.
3. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2922 (POLETHYLENE) OR ASTM F2418 (POLYPROPYLENE), "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
4. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORTS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION.
5. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES.
6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED, TESTED AND ALLOWABLE LOAD CONFIGURATIONS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
LOAD CONFIGURATIONS SHALL INCLUDE: 1) INSTANTANEOUS (<1 MIN) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON MINIMUM COVER 2) MAXIMUM PERMANENT (75-YR) COVER LOAD AND 3) ALLOWABLE COVER WITH PARKED (1-WEEK) AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK.
7. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: · TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. · TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2”. · TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS.
8. ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. UPON REQUEST BY THE SITE DESIGN
ENGINEER OR OWNER, THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE AS FOLLOWS: · THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL BE SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. · THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SHALL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY SECTIONS 3 AND 12.12 OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. · THE TEST DERIVED CREEP MODULUS AS SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2922 SHALL BE USED FOR PERMANENT DEAD LOAD DESIGN EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE THE 75-YEAR MODULUS USED FOR DESIGN.
9. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 10. MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE. DUE TO THE
ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.
11. ADS DOES NOT DESIGN OR PROVIDE MEMBRANE LINER SYSTEMS. TO MINIMIZE THE LEAKAGE POTENTIAL OF LINER SYSTEMS, THE MEMBRANE LINER SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED BY A KNOWLEDGEABLE GEOTEXTILE PROFESSIONAL AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED CONTRACTOR. ©2024 ADS, INC.
PROJECT INFORMATION
ADS SALES REP
PROJECT NO.
ENGINEERED PRODUCT
MANAGER
MCD HAWTHORNE
HAWTHORNE, CA, USA
StormTech 1-800-821-6710 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM ® Chamber System 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD HILLIARD, OH 43026 1-800-733-7473 DATE: 08/19/2024 DRAWN: GC PROJECT #: CHECKED: N/A THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS/STORMTECH UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER OF RECORD (“EOR”) OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE EOR’S PRIOR APPROVAL. EOR SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. DATE DRW CHK DESCRIPTION MCD HAWTHORNE HAWTHORNE, CA, USA SHEET
2 OF 6
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED): 9.83 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC): 3.83
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC): 3.33
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT): 3.33 MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT): 3.33 TOP OF STONE: 2.33
TOP OF SC-310 CHAMBER: 1.83
8" x 8" TOP MANIFOLD INVERT: 0.79
12" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT: 0.58
8" BOTTOM CONNECTION INVERT: 0.55
BOTTOM OF SC-310 CHAMBER: 0.50
UNDERDRAIN INVERT: 0.00
BOTTOM OF STONE: 0.00
PROPOSED LAYOUT
107 STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERS
16 STORMTECH SC-310 END CAPS
6 STONE ABOVE (in)
6 STONE BELOW (in)
40 STONE VOID
3667
INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)
(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)
(COVER STONE INCLUDED)
(BASE STONE INCLUDED)
2913 SYSTEM AREA (SF)
269.8 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)
473 THERMOPLASTIC LINER (SY)
(20% OVERAGE)
DESCRIPTION INVERT* MAX FLOW
ITEM ON
LAYOUT PART TYPE
0.90" 12" BOTTOM PREFABRICATED EZ END CAP, PART#: SC310ECEZ / TYP OF ALL 12" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS
PREFABRICATED EZ END CAP A
FLAMP B INSTALL FLAMP ON 12" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: SC31012RAMP MANIFOLD C 8" x 8" TOP MANIFOLD, MOLDED FITTINGS 3.50"
PIPE CONNECTION D 8" BOTTOM CONNECTION 0.60"
E 30" DIAMETER (24.00" SUMP MIN) 2.3 CFS IN
NYLOPLAST (INLET W/ ISO
PLUS ROW)
NYLOPLAST (OUTLET) F 30" DIAMETER (DESIGN BY ENGINEER) 0.7 CFS OUT UNDERDRAIN G 4" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN 0 10 20
106.15' 28.77'
100.84' 26.17'
NOTES
• THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. *INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER
ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
(SEE DETAIL)
PLACE MINIMUM 12.50' OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING
STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL
CHAMBER INLET ROWS
THERMOPLASTIC LINER (SEE TECH NOTE #6.50 PROVIDED BY OTHERS /
DESIGN BY OTHERS)
G
D
B
A
F
C
E
StormTech 1-800-821-6710 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM ® Chamber System ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBER SYSTEMS PLEASE NOTE:
1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".
2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6" (150 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.
3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.
4. ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
5. WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS 'A' OR 'B' THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20 "RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL".
NOTES:
1. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2922 (POLETHYLENE) OR ASTM F2418 (POLYPROPYLENE), "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
2. SC-310 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
3. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. REFERENCE STORMTECH DESIGN MANUAL FOR BEARING CAPACITY GUIDANCE.
4. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.
5. REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION: · TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS. · TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 2”. · TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 400 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION
6.2.8 OF ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW COLORS.
MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION
AASHTO MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT
D
FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C'
LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER.
ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.
CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. N/A
PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED
INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND
PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
C
INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 18" (450 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER.
GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE.
MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS LAYER.
AASHTO M145¹ A-1, A-2-4, A-3
OR
AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10 BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 12" (300 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER
THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN
6" (150 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS. ROLLER GROSS
VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 lbs (53 kN). DYNAMIC FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 lbs (89 kN).
B
EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.
A
FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3 D
C
B
A
*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED
INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 24" (600 mm).
SUBGRADE SOILS
(SEE NOTE 4)
PERIMETER STONE
(SEE NOTE 5)
EXCAVATION WALL
(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)
SC-310
END CAP
PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)
16"
(405 mm)
18"
(450 mm) MIN*
8'
(2.4 m)
MAX
6" (150 mm)
MIN
6" (150 mm) MIN
(SEE NOTE 3)
12" (300 mm) MIN 34" (865 mm) 12" (300 mm) TYP
6"
(150 mm) MIN
**THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION.
PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FOR
PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
1 LAYER OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ON BOTH SIDES OF THERMOPLASTIC LINER ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS.
SEE ADS TECHNICAL NOTE 6.50 FOR NON-WOVEN WEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS.
THERMOPLASTIC LINER DETAIL
NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
EARTH
THERMOPLASTIC
LINER (DESIGNED AND
PROVIDED BY OTHERS)
OVERLAP ON TOP
SEVERAL INCHES
TO ANCHOR (PER
MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS)
ANGULAR
STONE
NON-WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
1 LAYER OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN COVER STONE AND C LAYER. 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD HILLIARD, OH 43026 1-800-733-7473 DATE: 08/19/2024 DRAWN: GC PROJECT #: CHECKED: N/A THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS/STORMTECH UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER OF RECORD (“EOR”) OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE EOR’S PRIOR APPROVAL. EOR SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. DATE DRW CHK DESCRIPTION MCD HAWTHORNE HAWTHORNE, CA, USA SHEET
3 OF 6
StormTech 1-800-821-6710 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM ® Chamber System
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT
A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)
A.1. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN
A.2. REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED
A.3. USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG A.4. LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) A.5. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
B. ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS
B.1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE i) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A. A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED B. APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN C. VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED
STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.
STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.
NOTES
1. INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.
2. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.
SC-310 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
NTS
OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT
SC-310 END CAP
SC-310 CHAMBER
STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS
FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM
STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES
ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS625 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN
FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS
4' (1.2 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS
ELEVATED BYPASS MANIFOLD
SUMP DEPTH TBD BY
SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)
NYLOPLAST
12" (300 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED
USE EZ END CAP PART #: SC310ECEZ
INSTALL FLAMP ON 12" (300 mm) ACCESS PIPE
PART#: SC31012RAMP 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD HILLIARD, OH 43026 1-800-733-7473 DATE: 08/19/2024 DRAWN: GC PROJECT #: CHECKED: N/A THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS/STORMTECH UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER OF RECORD (“EOR”) OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE EOR’S PRIOR APPROVAL. EOR SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. DATE DRW CHK DESCRIPTION MCD HAWTHORNE HAWTHORNE, CA, USA SHEET
4 OF 6
StormTech 1-800-821-6710 | WWW.STORMTECH.COM ® Chamber System
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
NTS
A
A
B B
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 & SC-160LP SYSTEMS
6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, SC-800, DC-780, MC-3500, MC-4500 & MC-7200 SYSTEMS
OUTLET MANIFOLD
STORMTECH
END CAP
STORMTECH
CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
END CAP
DUAL WALL
PERFORATED
HDPE
UNDERDRAIN
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
CHAMBER
NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 34.0" X 16.0" X 85.4" (864 mm X 406 mm X 2169 mm) CHAMBER STORAGE 14.7 CUBIC FEET (0.42 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE* 31.0 CUBIC FEET (0.88 m³)
WEIGHT 35.0 lbs. (16.8 kg)
*ASSUMES 6" (152 mm) ABOVE, BELOW, AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
SC-310 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
NTS
OVERLAP NEXT CHAMBER HERE
(OVER SMALL CORRUGATION)
START END
34.0"
(864 mm)
16.0"
(406 mm)
90.7" (2304 mm) ACTUAL LENGTH 85.4" (2169 mm) INSTALLED LENGTH A A
B C
9.9"
(251 mm)
15.6"
(396 mm)
PART # STUB A B C
SC310EPE06T / SC310EPE06TPC
6" (150 mm) 9.6" (244 mm) 5.8" (147 mm) --- SC310EPE06B / SC310EPE06BPC --- 0.5" (13 mm) SC310EPE08T / SC310EPE08TPC
8" (200 mm) 11.9" (302 mm) 3.5" (89 mm) --- SC310EPE08B / SC310EPE08BPC --- 0.6" (15 mm) SC310EPE10T / SC310EPE10TPC
10" (250 mm) 12.7" (323 mm) 1.4" (36 mm) --- SC310EPE10B / SC310EPE10BPC --- 0.7" (18 mm) SC310ECEZ* 12" (300 mm) 13.5" (343 mm) --- 0.9" (23 mm) ALL STUBS, EXCEPT FOR THE SC310ECEZ ARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-800-821-6710.
* FOR THE SC310ECEZ THE 12" (300 mm) STUB LIES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP APPROXIMATELY 0.25" (6 mm).
BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM BELOW THE N-12 STUB SO THAT THE FITTING SITS LEVEL.
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
PRE-FAB STUB AT BOTTOM OF END CAP WITH FLAMP END WITH "BR" PRE-FAB STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" PRE-FAB STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T" PRE CORED END CAPS END WITH "PC" 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD HILLIARD, OH 43026 1-800-733-7473 DATE: 08/19/2024 DRAWN: GC PROJECT #: CHECKED: N/A THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS/STORMTECH UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER OF RECORD (“EOR”) OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE EOR’S PRIOR APPROVAL. EOR SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. DATE DRW CHK DESCRIPTION MCD HAWTHORNE HAWTHORNE, CA, USA SHEET
5 OF 6
NYLOPLAST DRAIN BASIN
NTS
NOTES
1. 8-30" (200-750 mm) GRATES/SOLID COVERS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05
2. 12-30" (300-750 mm) FRAMES SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON PER ASTM A536 GRADE 70-50-05
3. DRAIN BASIN TO BE CUSTOM MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAILS
4. DRAINAGE CONNECTION STUB JOINT TIGHTNESS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212 FOR CORRUGATED HDPE (ADS & HANCOR DUAL WALL) & SDR 35 PVC
5. FOR COMPLETE DESIGN AND PRODUCT INFORMATION: WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM
6. TO ORDER CALL: 800-821-6710 A PART # GRATE/SOLID COVER OPTIONS 8"
(200 mm) 2808AG
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
DUTY
STANDARD LIGHT
DUTY
SOLID LIGHT DUTY
10"
(250 mm) 2810AG
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
DUTY
STANDARD LIGHT
DUTY
SOLID LIGHT DUTY
12"
(300 mm) 2812AG
PEDESTRIAN
AASHTO H-10
STANDARD AASHTO
H-20
SOLID
AASHTO H-20
15"
(375 mm) 2815AG
PEDESTRIAN
AASHTO H-10
STANDARD AASHTO
H-20
SOLID
AASHTO H-20
18"
(450 mm) 2818AG
PEDESTRIAN
AASHTO H-10
STANDARD AASHTO
H-20
SOLID
AASHTO H-20
24"
(600 mm) 2824AG
PEDESTRIAN
AASHTO H-10
STANDARD AASHTO
H-20
SOLID
AASHTO H-20
30"
(750 mm) 2830AG
PEDESTRIAN
AASHTO H-20
STANDARD AASHTO
H-20
SOLID
AASHTO H-20
INTEGRATED DUCTILE IRON
FRAME & GRATE/SOLID TO
MATCH BASIN O.D.
VARIOUS TYPES OF INLET AND
OUTLET ADAPTERS AVAILABLE:
4-30" (100-750 mm) FOR
CORRUGATED HDPE
WATERTIGHT JOINT
(CORRUGATED HDPE SHOWN)
BACKFILL MATERIAL BELOW AND TO SIDES
OF STRUCTURE SHALL BE ASTM D2321
CLASS I OR II CRUSHED STONE OR GRAVEL
AND BE PLACED UNIFORMLY IN 12" (305 mm)
LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO MIN OF 90%
TRAFFIC LOADS: CONCRETE DIMENSIONS
ARE FOR GUIDELINE PUPOSES ONLY.
ACTUAL CONCRETE SLAB MUST BE
DESIGNED GIVING CONSIDERATION FOR
LOCAL SOIL CONDITIONS, TRAFFIC LOADING
& OTHER APPLICABLE DESIGN FACTORS
ADAPTER ANGLES VARIABLE 0°- 360°
ACCORDING TO PLANS
18" (457 mm)
MIN WIDTH A
AASHTO H-20 CONCRETE SLAB
8" (203 mm) MIN THICKNESS
VARIABLE SUMP DEPTH
ACCORDING TO PLANS
[6" (152 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm),
10" (254 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm)]
4" (102 mm) MIN ON 8-24" (200-600 mm)
6" (152 mm) MIN ON 30" (750 mm)
12" (610 mm) MIN
(FOR AASHTO H-20)
INVERT ACCORDING TO
PLANS/TAKE OFF Nyloplast 770-932-2443 | WWW.NYLOPLAST-US.COM ® 4640 TRUEMAN BLVD HILLIARD, OH 43026 1-800-733-7473 DATE: 08/19/2024 DRAWN: GC PROJECT #: CHECKED: N/A THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ADS/STORMTECH UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT’S ENGINEER OF RECORD (“EOR”) OR OTHER PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. THIS DRAWING IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN BIDDING OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE EOR’S PRIOR APPROVAL. EOR SHALL REVIEW THIS DRAWING PRIOR TO BIDDING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS. DATE DRW CHK DESCRIPTION MCD HAWTHORNE HAWTHORNE, CA, USA SHEET 6 OF 6
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Attachment B
Geotechnical Investigation
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
MCDONALD’S SITE ID NO. 0045205
13324 INGLEWOOD AVENUE AND
13324 WEST 133RD STREET
HAWTHORNE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For MCDONALD’S USA
18565 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 850
IRVINE, CA 92612
Prepared By LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
2600 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 400
IRVINE, CA 92612-6540
Project Number 036.0000022167
June 28, 2024
June 28, 2024
Project No. 036.0000022167
MCDONALD’S USA
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 850
Irvine, California 92612
Attention: Mr. Scott Wilkeson
Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Report
McDonald’s Site ID No. 0045205
13324 S. Inglewood Avenue And 13324 West 133rd Street
Hawthorne, California
In accordance with your request, we are pleased to provide this report summarizing our geotechnical findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the design and construction of the proposed project (McDonalds’s Hawthorne 45205). Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in herein are implemented during design and construction phases of development.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
Christian Delgadillo, GE 3144
Associate Engineer
Ext: 4218; [email protected]
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF copy via email)
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site and Project Description .......................................................................... 1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING..................................... 3
2.1 Field Exploration............................................................................................ 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing......................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS.................................................. 4
3.1 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 4
3.2 Groundwater and Surface Water................................................................... 4
3.3 Landslides/Debris Flow and Rockfall ............................................................ 4
3.4 Regional Faulting and Fault Activity .............................................................. 4
3.5 Seismicity....................................................................................................... 5
3.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards ......................................................................... 6
3.6.1 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and/or Dry Settlement).............. 6
3.6.2 Lateral Spreading............................................................................ 6
3.6.3 Seiche and Tsunami ....................................................................... 6
3.6.4 Collapsible Soils.............................................................................. 7
3.6.5 Expansive Soils............................................................................... 7
3.6.6 Ground Rupture .............................................................................. 7
3.7 Percolation/Infiltration Testing ....................................................................... 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 9
4.1 General .......................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Earthwork....................................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading.......................................... 9
4.2.2 Structural Fills ............................................................................... 10
4.2.3 Import Soils ................................................................................... 10
4.2.4 Utility Trenches ............................................................................. 11
4.2.5 Shrinkage...................................................................................... 12
4.2.6 Drainage ....................................................................................... 12
4.3 Foundation Design....................................................................................... 12
4.3.1 Design Parameters – Spread/Continuous Shallow Footings......... 12
4.3.2 Settlement Estimates .................................................................... 13
4.4 Slab-On-Grade ............................................................................................ 13
4.5 Retaining Walls............................................................................................ 14
4.6 Soil Corrosivity............................................................................................. 16
4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design ..................................................................... 17 Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
ii
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES.............................................. 19
6.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 21 Tables
Table 1. 2022 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure ....................... 6 Table 2. Field Percolation Testing Summary.................................................................. 8 Table 3. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)............................... 15 Table 4. Asphalt Pavement Sections............................................................................ 17
ATTACHMENTS
Figures
Figure 1 – Site Location Map End of Text
Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map End of Text
Appendices
Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings and Percolation Test Results Appendix B – Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Appendix C – Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix D – GBA - Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This geotechnical exploration is for the proposed Hawthorne 45205 store, located on the southeast corner of South Inglewood Avenue and West 133rd Street in Hawthorne, California. Our scope of services for this exploration included the following:
Review of available site-specific geologic information and provided site plan. A site reconnaissance and excavation, logging, and sampling of four (4) exploratory borings. Approximate locations of these geotechnical borings are depicted on Figure 2, Exploration Location Map. The logs of exploratory borings are presented in Appendix A.
Percolation testing within the proposed infiltration areas to provide preliminary infiltration rates for the onsite soil. The one (1) percolation test extended to a depth of approximately 5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). The test data is presented in Appendix A.
Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected during this evaluation. Test results are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and reviewed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).
Preparation of this report, which presents our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed structures.
This report is not intended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or other), or foundation plan review.
1.2 Site and Project Description
The site is located on the southeast corner of South Inglewood Avenue and West 133rd Street in Hawthorne, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The Los Angeles County Assessor’s office has designated the Site as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 4042-011-024 and 4042-011-026. Topographically, the site is relatively flat and bordered by 133rd Street to the north, South Inglewood Avenue to the west, West 134th Street to the south, and commercial/residential buildings to the Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
2 east. The Site was formerly occupied by a trailer park; however, there are currently no onsite structures and the property is vacant at this time. There are 17 concrete pads for trailers and one concrete pad for a former structure that appears to have been a rental office and/or managers residence. There are two asphalt-paved driveways and an asphalt-paved parking lot located in the southeast portion of the Site.
We understand that the proposed site development (see Figure 2) includes an approximately 3,694 square-foot building (new McDonald’s restaurant) along with a trash enclosure, associated sidewalks, parking and driveways. The proposed building is anticipated to consist of one-story wood-frame structure supported by isolated spread and continuous wall footings founded near existing grades (within upper 3 feet bgs). Based on the preliminary site plan provided to us, we anticipate cut and fill grading of less than 2 feet to create finish site grades. If site development plans significantly differ from those described herein, the report should be subject to further review and evaluation.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
3 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Field Exploration
Our field exploration consisted of the excavation of four (4) hollow stem auger borings to depths ranging from 11½ to 26½ feet below ground surface (bgs) in areas of planned buildings and parking areas and one (1) percolation test within a designated area of the site, at a depth of 5 feet bgs. During exploration, disturbed/bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were collected for further laboratory testing and evaluation. Approximate locations of these borings are depicted on the Exploration Location Map (see Figure 2). Sampling and logging were conducted by a technical member from our firm. After logging and sampling, the excavations were backfilled with spoils generated during excavation and the surface was patched to match the existing grade using quick set concrete and black dye. The exploration logs are provided in Appendix A.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk samples to provide a basis for development of earthwork control and foundation design. The laboratory testing program included maximum density and moisture content relationship, corrosion suite, R-value, Direct Shear, consolidation, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
4 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
3.1 Subsurface Conditions
Our field exploration, observations, and review of the pertinent literature indicate that the site is underlain by artificial fill (Af) overlying Quaternary old alluvial sediments (Qoa). A more detailed description of each unit is provided on the logs of borings in Appendix A.
Artificial fill: Fill materials were encountered in our borings up to a depth of 5 feet deep. The fill consisted mainly of medium stiff clay and sandy clay. The fill was presumably placed during construction of the former trailer park that occupied the property.
Alluvium: Alluvial materials were encountered in our borings below the artificial fill to the maximum depth explored of 26½ feet As encountered, the alluvial deposits generally consisted of medium dense to very dense clayey sand and sand, and very stiff to hard sandy clay and clay.
3.2 Groundwater and Surface Water
Groundwater was not encountered during this exploration to a maximum depth explored of approximately 26½ feet below existing ground surface. Based on historic high groundwater from the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Inglewood Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the groundwater levels reached approximately 47 feet bgs near the site. However, depth to groundwater can fluctuate depending on rainfall and seasonal variation.
3.3 Landslides/Debris Flow and Rockfall
No evidence of on-site landslides/debris flow or rock fall was observed during our field investigation. Due to lack of exposed rock and relatively low topographic relief of surrounding properties, the potential for rock fall due to either erosion or seismic ground shaking is considered negligible.
3.4 Regional Faulting and Fault Activity
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
5 movement along the northwest-trending regional fault systems such as the San Andreas Fault Zone. Based on published geologic hazard maps, this site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone, or a County Fault Zone. The nearest zoned faults are the Newport-Inglewood Fault and the Palos Verdes fault. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately
2.9 miles northeast away from the site and the Palos Verdes is approximately 5.6 miles southwest of the site.
3.5 Seismicity
As is common for virtually all of Southern California, strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region.
Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. The seismic coefficients were calculated utilizing an interactive program on current OSHPD website using ASCE 7-16 procedures, as well as USGS Unified Hazard Maps. Based on our exploration and review, the site will be underlain by relatively dense alluvial materials. As such, the site is classified as a Class D site, and the site-specific seismic coefficients are as listed in the following table:
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
6 Table 1. 2022 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure Site Seismic Coefficients / Coordinates Value
Latitude 33.9113
Longitude -118.3610
Mapped Spectra (OSHPD)
Spectral Response – Class D (short), SS 1.833g
Spectral Response – Class D (1 sec), S1 0.645g
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.87g
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.83g
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 1.105g(1)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 1.22g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.737g(1) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.79g
g = Gravity acceleration
(1) Per Supplement 3 to ASCE 7-16, the seismic parameters SM1 and SD1 in Table 1 above should be increased by 50% (Site Class D). Alternatively, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with Section 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 is required for this site.
3.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards
Ground shaking can induce “secondary” seismic hazards such as liquefaction, dynamic densification, lateral spreading, flooding, seiche/tsunami, collapsible soils, and ground rupture, as discussed in the following subsections:
3.6.1 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and/or Dry Settlement) Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and dense nature of underlying older alluvial soils, dynamic settlement (Liquefaction and/or Dry Settlement) is not considered a geologic hazard on this site.
3.6.2 Lateral Spreading
Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and dense nature of underlying materials, lateral spreading is not considered a geologic hazard on this site.
3.6.3 Seiche and Tsunami
Due to the site location and lack of nearby open bodies of water, the possibility of the affects due to seiches or tsunami is considered nil.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
7 3.6.4 Collapsible Soils
Due to the dense nature and relatively high dry densities of the near-surface materials, collapse potential is considered to be low on this site.
3.6.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and which shrink when dried. Foundations constructed on these swells are subject to uplifting forces caused by swelling. Without proper mitigation measures heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result.
One (1) near-surface (upper 5 feet) bulk sample of clay obtained during our subsurface exploration was tested for expansion potential. The test results indicate that the onsite soils have a "high” expansion potential (Expansion Index of 85). The Expansion Index laboratory test result is included in Appendix B of this report.
3.6.6 Ground Rupture
Since this site is not located within a mapped Fault Zone and there are no known faults within or trending into the property, the possibility of ground surface-fault-rupture is considered very low at this site.
3.7 Percolation/Infiltration Testing
One (1) preliminary percolation test was performed in a proposed infiltration area (see Figure 2) in general accordance with the procedures of the Los Angeles County Public Works Standards (Los Angeles County, 2021). The percolation test was performed at a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs. The percolation test results/data sheets are included in Appendix A.
Per the guidelines by County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (2021), reduction factors should be applied to measured infiltration rates to determine design values that will represent long-term performance of the proposed infiltration system. A reduction factor of 3 was selected to account for the test method, site variability, and long-term siltation. Results of the percolation testing are summarized in Table 2.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
8 Table 2. Field Percolation Testing Summary
Percolation Test
Boring/Well
Designation
Percolation Test
Method
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone Below
Ground Surface (feet)
Design
Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
LB-4 Falling Head 5 0.01
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
9 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
Based on the results of this exploration, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical viewpoint. Grading of the site should be in accordance with our recommendations included in this report and future recommendations and evaluations made during construction by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix C as well as the following recommendations.
The recommendations contained in Appendix C, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix C.
The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report, the specifications in Appendix C, applicable Grading Ordinances, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant during construction.
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. allstructural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of stockpiled soils, debris, vegetation, surface and subsurface pipelines and obstructions. Heavy vegetation, roots and debris should be disposed of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried/unsuitable materials should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Building Areas: Foundation for the proposed building should be underlain by compacted fill reinforced with geogrid to provide a uniform support and reduce potential for differential settlement. The compacted fill should extend a minimum of 3 feet below bottom of the foundation and a minimum 3 feet beyond outside edges of the foundation. Localized Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
10 deeper over-excavation (ox) may be required depending on actual field conditions encountered during excavation.
Vehicular Pavements/Flatwork: Pavement areas, driveway, and concrete flatwork should be underlain by a minimum of 1 foot of compacted fill. Local conditions may be encountered that could require additional overexcavation beyond the above noted minimum to obtain an acceptable subgrade.
The actual depths and lateral extents of remedial grading will be determined by Leighton, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.
Prior to placing fill materials, the pavement subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and proofrolled. Any soft and/or unsuitable materials encountered at the bottom of the excavations should be removed and replaced with fill material.
4.2.2 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) at least 2 to 4 percentage points above optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness.
4.2.3 Import Soils
Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by us prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have very low expansion potential (E<21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
11 4.2.4 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2021 Edition. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 1½ inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent to moisture sensitive subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut-off “plug” of impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings, and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas.
A “plug” can consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35-percent passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of one sack of Portland-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic-yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to requirements of the “Greenbook”. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture sensitive subgrade soils under buildings and pavements.
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (latest Edition). The contractor should be responsible for providing a "competent person" as defined in Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) could make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
12 be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Leighton Consulting, Inc. does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
4.2.5 Shrinkage
The volume change of excavated onsite soils upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, and location and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust grades slightly to accommodate some variation. Based on our geotechnical laboratory results, we expect recompaction shrinkage (when recompacted to an average 92 percent of ASTM D1557) to vary between 5% and 15%, where the shrinkage decreases with depth.
4.2.6 Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from structures and pavements by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be avoided when possible. As an option, sealed-bottom planter boxes and/or drought resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings.
4.3 Foundation Design
4.3.1 Design Parameters – Spread/Continuous Shallow Footings Footings should be embedded at least 18-inches below lowest adjacent grade for the proposed structure. Footing embedment should be measured from lowest adjacent finished grade, considered as the top of interior slabson-grade or the finished exterior grade, excluding landscape topsoil, whichever is lower. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches or vaults should be embedded below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane projected upward and outward from the bottom edge of the trench or vault, up towards the footing.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
13 Bearing Capacity: For footings on newly placed, properly compacted fill soil, an allowable vertical bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds-per-squarefoot (psf) should be used. These footings should have a minimum base width of 12 inches for continuous wall footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75-ft by 1.75-ft) for pad foundations. The bearing pressure value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of embedment or each additional foot of width to a maximum vertical bearing value of 3,000 psf. Additionally, these bearing values may be increased by one-third when considering short-term seismic or wind loads. A modulus of subgrade reaction, K of 60 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design.
Lateral loads: Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting subgrade. A maximum allowable frictional resistance of 0.35 may be used for design. In addition, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat against properly compacted granular fill. We recommend that an allowable passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 390 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) be used in design. These friction and passive values have already been reduced by a factor-of-safety of 1.5.
4.3.2 Settlement Estimates
Based on structural loads and foundation conditions described in Section
1.2, proposed buildings should be designed in anticipation of 1-inch of total settlement and 0.5-inch differential settlement within a 40-foot horizontal distance. If greater column/wall loads or deeper footings are required, we should re-evaluate our foundation recommendations, and re-calculate settlement estimates.
4.4 Slab-On-Grade
From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend slab-on-grade floor slab be a minimum 5 inches thick with No. 3 rebar placed at the center of the slab at 18 inches on center in each direction. The structural engineer should design the actual thickness and reinforcement based on anticipated loading conditions.
Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment is planned, the slabs should be protected by a minimum 10-mil thick vapor barrier between the slab and subgrade.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
14 Exterior concrete slabs that are not subject to vehicular loading, such as patio slabs and sidewalks, should be at least 4 inches thick. We suggest that the exterior concrete slabs be reinforced using No. 3 rebar, 18 inches on center in both directions, placed at mid-thickness. Prior to placement of rebar and concrete, we recommend subgrade for the concrete flatwork be pre-saturated to 1.3 times the optimum moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches.
Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected; however, concrete is often aggravated by a high water/cement ration, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Additionally, our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential for concrete cracking.
To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels.
4.5 Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
15 Table 3. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density
(pcf)
Level Backfill
Active 40
At-Rest 60
Passive* 300
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth.
Retaining walls retaining more than 6 feet of soil should consider a seismic earth pressure increment with an inverted triangular distribution of 30 psf/foot in addition to the active earth pressure provided above. The above values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the structural engineer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design.
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalentfluid weight value provided above for very low expansive soils that are free draining.
In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.
All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non-expansive (EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
16 4.6 Soil Corrosivity
One representative soil sample was evaluated for corrosivity to concrete and steel.
The test results are presented in Appendix B, Laboratory Test Results, and design Recommendations pertaining to soil corrosivity are presented below.
We anticipate that concrete structures will be exposed to moisture from precipitation and irrigation. Based on the site location and the results of chloride testing of the site soils, we do not anticipate that concrete structures will be exposed to external sources of chlorides, such as deicing chemicals, salt, brackish water, or seawater.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) specifies exposure category C1 where concrete is exposed to moisture, but not to external sources of chlorides based on Table
19.3.1.1 of ACI 318 (2014). ACI provides concrete design recommendations in Table 19.3.2.1, including a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi and a maximum chloride content of 0.3 percent for non-prestressed concrete and 0.06 percent for prestressed concrete.
Based on laboratory testing, the onsite soils are expected to possess negligible sulfate content (<1,000 ppm). ACI 318 (2014) specifies exposure category S0 based on Table 19.3.1.1. There is no cement type specified for exposure category S0 based on Table 19.3.2.1; however, a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi should be used. Type II cement or equivalent may be used. Further testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to confirm such conditions.
The measured value of the minimum electrical resistivity of the sample when saturated was 750 ohm-cm for the tested soil sample. This indicates that the soils tested at the site are “very severely corrosive” to ferrous metals based on findings of studies presented in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) STP 1013 titled “Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion” (February 1989). A qualified corrosion consultant should provide appropriate corrosion mitigation for ferrous metals in contact with the onsite soils.
This is a conservative assessment based on limited sampling; therefore, additional corrosion testing should be performed at the completion of grading or as recommended by a qualified corrosion consultant.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
17 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design
Our preliminary pavement design is based on a design R-value of at least 5, and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. For planning and estimating purposes, the pavement sections are calculated for a range of Traffic Indexes (TI) as listed in table below.
Table 4. Asphalt Pavement Sections
Traffic Index
(TI)
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base
(inches)
5 4 9
6 4½ 13
7 5½ 14
Appropriate Traffic Index (TI) should be selected or verified by the project civil engineer and actual R-value of the subgrade soils will need to be verified after completion of site grading. Pavement design and construction should also conform to applicable local City, County and industry standards. The Caltrans pavement section design calculations were based on a pavement life of approximately 20 years with periodic flexible pavement maintenance.
Where applicable, we recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of PCC pavement be used in high impact load areas or if to be subjected to truck traffic. The PCC pavement should be placed on a minimum 6-inch aggregate base. The PCC pavement should have a minimum of 28-day compressive strength of 3250 psi.
Other requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications regarding mixing and placing of concrete should be followed.
The upper 6 inches of the subgrade soils should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed.
Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. If applicable, aggregate base should conform to the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the subgrade load bearing capacity and pavement failure may result. Moisture control measures such as deepened curbs or other moisture Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
18 barrier materials may be used to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished) or irrigated landscaped areas.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
19 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton Consulting, Inc. be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid.
Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided:
After completion of site demolition and clearing,
During over-excavation of compressible soil,
During compaction of all fill materials,
After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete, During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and When any unusual conditions are encountered.
Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
20 6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that we (Leighton Consulting, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. Please refer to Appendix D, GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report, prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) presenting additional information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports.
This report was prepared for the sole use of Client and their design team, for application to design of the proposed maintenance building, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Any unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability, which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
21 REFERENCES
Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Settlement for Dynamic and Transient Loads, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16 Publication.
Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007.
California Building Code (CBC), 2022, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2024, Well Completion Report Map Application, https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003. By Tianquing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie Rowshandel, David Branum and Christopher J. Wills.
California Geological Survey, (CGS), 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, Compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, Open File Report 06-1217.
Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K., Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’x 60’ Quadrangles, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217, Dated 2006.
NETR Online, 2024, Historic Aerials, https://www.historicaerials.com/ OSHPD, 2024, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16 seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2021, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: 2021 Edition, BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
22 San Bernardino County Public Health Services, revised 2019, Percolation Testing and Reporting Standards for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems, San Bernardino, California.
USGS, 2024, Web-Service Wrapper Around the nshmp-haz Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Platform, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ Scale:
Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2024
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 22167 Eng/Geol: CD
Map Saved as Z:\Project Files\MA-NZ\McDonaldsUSA\22167 - 45205 Hawthorne Geotech\Verdantas Folders\GIS\Maps\22167_F01_SLM_2024-04-05.mxd on 4/4/2024 4:40:19 PM Author: (btran)
Date: April 2024
SITE LOCATION MAP
McDonalds 45205
13324 West 133rd Street
Hawthorne, California 90250
Approximate
Site Boundary
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
FIGURE 1
Map Saved as Z:\Project Files\MA-NZ\McDonaldsUSA\22167 - 45205 Hawthorne Geotech\Verdantas Folders\GIS\Maps\22167_F02_ELM_2024-05-23.mxd on 4/5/2024 9:13:38 AM Author: (btran)
EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
McDonalds 45205
13324 West 133rd Street
Hawthorne, California
³ 0 30 60
Feet
Scale:1 " = 30 '
Project: 22167 Eng/Geol: CD
Date: May 2024
Legend
&< Approximate location of boring
showing total depth (T.D.)
Approximate Site
Boundary
Reference: Delivery Truck Plan - Option 2
Sheet CP1.20 by Sevan Engineering, P.C.
FIGURE 2
LB-4
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Geotechnical Exploration 036.0000022167
Hawthorne 45205, Hawthorne, CA June 28, 2024
A-1
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
Encountered earth materials were logged and sampled in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488).
Representative soil samples were transported to our in-house Irvine laboratory for geotechnical testing. After logging and sampling, our borings were backfilled with spoils generated during drilling and capped with quickset concrete andblack dye.
One shallow boring LB-4 was drilled to a depth of 5 and converted to a temporary percolation test well. The boring was pre-soaked upon completion of drilling in preparation for in-situ percolation testing. The testing was performed in general accordance with County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (LADPW) Guidelines for Geotechnical Investigation and Reporting Low Impact Development Stormwater Infiltration, dated June 30, 2021 (LADPW, 2021). After the conclusion of percolation testing, the PVC pipe was removed from the test well and the test well was backfilled with soil cuttings and capped with quickset concrete and black dye.
CH
CL
SP
CL
CL
SP
@Surface: 2-inches of Asphalt Concrete
Artificial Fill (Af)
@2": Fat CLAY, medium stiff, very dark brown, moist, high plasticity.
Quaternary-aged old alluvium deposits (Qoa)
@5': Lean CLAY, very stiff, olive brown, slightly moist, oxidation. @10': Poorly-graded SAND, dense, light yellow brown mottled with oxidation, slightly moist, very fine sands, trace fines. @15': SANDY CLAY, hard, light gray mottled with brown, slightly moist, fine to medium coarse sand, trace calcium carbonate, medium plasticity.
@25': Poorly-graded SAND, very dense, light brown mottled with orange and mica, slightly moist, very fine sand, trace fines.
TOTAL DEPTH = 26.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILL WITH SOIL CUTTINGS
SURFACE PATCHED TO MATCH EXISTING SURFACE
111
118
108
98 105
16 9
20 27
12 B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
AL, EI,
CR
9 DS
12 14
9 20
31 7
14 19
10 13
25 4
36 50
82'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
RM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
3-15-24
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches
SAMPLE TYPES:
BC2
Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
80 75
70 65
60 55
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * RM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
McDonald's Hawthone 45205
036.0000022167
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
CL
SC
SP
CL
@Surface: 2-inches of Asphalt Concrete
Artificial Fill (Af)
@2": SANDY CLAY, medium stiff, dark brown, moist, very fine sand, medium plasticity.
Quaternary-aged old alluvium deposits (Qos)
@5': CLAYEY SAND, dense, light gray brown, mottled with oxidation, slightly moist, very fine sand, medium plasticity. @10': Poorly-graded SAND w/ CLAY, dense, light gray brown, mottled with oxidation, slightly moist to moist, fine to medium coarse sand, medium plasticity.
@15': SANDY CLAY, hard, light gray brown, mottled with
oxidation, slightly moist to moist, very fine sand, medium plasticity.
TOTAL DEPTH = 16.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILL WITH SOIL CUTTINGS
SURFACE PATCHED TO MATCH EXISTING SURFACE
105
111
91 17
19 31
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
6 18
30 7
19 34
8 15
22 83'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
RM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
3-15-24
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches
SAMPLE TYPES:
BC2
Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
80 75
70 65
60 55
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * RM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
McDonald's Hawthone 45205
036.0000022167
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
CL
CL
SP
@Surface: 2-inches of Asphalt Concrete
Artificial Fill (Af)
@2": SANDY CLAY, stiff, dark brown, moist, very fine sand, medium to high plasticity.
Quaternary-aged old alluvium deposits (Qoa)
@5': Lean CLAY, very stiff, brown, moist, very fine sand, low plasticity, oxidation.
@10': Poorly-graded SAND, medium dense, light gray brown with mica, moist, very fine sand, trace fines.
TOTAL DEPTH = 11.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILL WITH SOIL CUTTINGS
SURFACE PATCHED TO MATCH EXISTING SURFACE
98 106
26 20
B-1
R-1
R-2
6 CN
8 9
5 9
11 83'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
RM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
3-15-24
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches
SAMPLE TYPES:
BC2
Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
80 75
70 65
60 55
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * RM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
McDonald's Hawthone 45205
036.0000022167
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
CH
CL
@Surface: Vegitation.
Artificial Fill (Af)
@0": Fat CLAY, very stiff, very dark brown, moist, trace fine sand, high plasticity.
Quaternary-aged old alluvium deposits (Qoa)
@5": Lean CLAY, very stiff, dark brown, slightly moist, low plasticity.
TOTAL DEPTH = 6.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
BACKFILL WITH SOIL CUTTINGS
CONVERTED TO PERCOLATION TEST
B-1
R-1
RV
4 -200
14 16
82'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
RM
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
3-15-24
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches
SAMPLE TYPES:
BC2
Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
80 75
70 65
60 55
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * RM Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map
McDonald's Hawthone 45205
036.0000022167
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
Sample No. Bulk Driven
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Project Number: Test Hole Number: LB-4
Project Name: MCD Hawthorne Date Excavated: 3/15/2024
Earth Description: Clay Date Tested: 3/15/2024
Liquid Description: Tap Water Depth of boring (ft): 5.00 Tested By: RM Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Time for Pre-Soak: 4.0 hrs Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5.00 Start Time for Standard: 10:00 AM Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 4.00 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.37
30 Reading Time Time Interval, Δt
(min.)
Initial/Final Depth
to Water (ft.)
Initial/Final Water
Height, H0/Hf (in.)
Total Water Drop,
Δd (in.)
Percolation Rate
(min./in.)
Infiltration Rate
(in./hr.) Notes
10:00 AM 4.00 12.00
10:30 AM 4.01 11.88
10:30 AM 4.01 11.88
11:00 AM 4.02 11.76
11:30 AM 4.00 12.00
12:00 PM 4.01 11.88
12:00 PM 4.00 12.00
12:30 PM 4.01 11.88
12:30 PM 4.00 12.00
1:00 PM 4.01 11.88
1:30 PM 4.00 12.00
2:00 PM 4.01 11.88
2:00 PM 4.00 12.00
2:30 PM 4.01 11.88
2:30 PM 4.00 12.00
3:00 PM 4.01 11.88
Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 readings) = 0.02 in./hr.
Design Infiltration Rate
Reduction Factor from Test Procedure, RFt = 1
Reduction Factor for Site Variability, # of Tests and I 0 1 Reduction factor for Long Term Siltation, Plugging and Maintenance, RFs = 1 Total Reduction Factor, RF = RFt + RFv + RFs = 3
Design Infiltration Rate = Measured Infiltration Rate / Reduction Factor (RF) = 0.01 in./hr.
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
036.0000022167
Standard Time Interval Between
Readings, mins:
Percolation Data
1 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
3 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
2 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
5 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
4 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
7 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
6 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
8 30 0.12 250.00 0.02
Infiltration Rate (I) = Flow Volume/Flow Area/Δt
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY
TESTING
LB-4
R-1
5.0 Ring
0.00.01.00.0 534.4110.7423.7
B
165.4110.7
54.7 87.1
12.9 Project Name: McDonald's HawthorneProject No.: 036.0000022167Tested By: K. Jumig Date: 03/22/24
PERCENT PASSING
No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
Weight of Sample + Container (g)Method (A or B)Weight of Container (g) % Retained No. 200 Sieve
Boring No.Sample No.Soil IdentificationDepth (ft.)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
Moisture Correction
Weight of Dry Sample (g)
Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g)
After Wash
Dry Weight of Sample (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Sample Dry Weight Determination
Moisture Content (%)Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)Container No.:Sample Type
Dark brown
lean clay (CL)
Weight of Container (g)
Passing #200 LB-4, R-1 @ 5
Project Name: McDonald's Hawthorne Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 03/28/24 Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 03/29/24
Boring No.: Checked By: J. Ward
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 0.0
Soil Identification:
121234
33 24 17
10.04 10.03 20.72 19.40 21.40
8.47 8.49 14.20 13.12 14.26
0.99 1.03 1.07 1.00 1.01
20.99 20.64 49.66 51.82 53.89
51 21
30 CH
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 22.63
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)
PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Very dark brown fat clay (CH)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
036.0000022167
LB-1
B-1
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)
0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 03/21/24
Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/22/24
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):
Sample No.: Sample Type:
Soil Identification:
Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 192.82
Weight of Ring (g): 45.12
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9765
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 185.76
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 156.11
Weight of Container (g): 39.91
Initial Moisture Content (%) 25.5
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 97.9
Initial Saturation (%): 94
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1118
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 252.36
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 222.47
Weight of Container (g): 58.54
Final Moisture Content (%) 25.16
Final Dry Density (pcf): 101.2
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1432
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.73
Water Density (pcf): 62.43
0.10 0.1123 0.9995 0.00 0.05 0.741 0.05
0.25 0.1170 0.9948 0.14 0.52 0.735 0.38
0.50 0.1229 0.9889 0.30 1.11 0.727 0.81
1.00 0.1283 0.9835 0.49 1.65 0.721 1.16
1.00 0.1186 0.9932 0.49 0.68 0.738 0.19
2.00 0.1231 0.9887 0.65 1.13 0.733 0.48
4.00 0.1363 0.9756 0.81 2.45 0.713 1.64
8.00 0.1588 0.9530 0.95 4.70 0.676 3.75
16.00 0.1960 0.9158 1.09 8.42 0.614 7.33
4.00 0.1812 0.9306 0.99 6.94 0.638 5.95
1.00 0.1596 0.9523 0.89 4.78 0.674 3.89
0.25 0.1432 0.9686 0.79 3.14 0.701 2.35
Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
LB-3
R-1
Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Brown lean clay (CL)
Time Readings
Elapsed
Time (min)
5.0 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
036.0000022167
McDonald's Hawthorne
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
0.600
0.620
0.640
0.660
0.680
0.700
0.720
0.740
0.760
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-3, R-1 @ 5
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:
Time Readings
97.9 0.701 94 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)
0.742
Void Ratio
5 25.5
Brown lean clay (CL)
Project No.:
McDonald's Hawthorne
04-24
036.0000022167
Boring
No.
Sample
No.
Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-1 25.2 101.2
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.1 1.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
6.00 7.00
8.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
1.2000
0.0 10.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
Project Name: McDonald's Hawthorne Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 03/25/24 Project No.: 036.0000022167 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/22/24 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 5.0
Soil Identification:
2.415 2.415 2.415
1.000 1.000 1.000
188.94 199.31 200.34
38.44 45.28 41.70
Before Shearing
220.46 220.46 220.46
198.07 198.07 198.07
56.75 56.75 56.75
0.0000 0.2777 0.2628
0.0122 0.2650 0.2700
After Shearing
213.17 224.96 214.56
180.65 194.67 186.72
57.09 68.90 55.12
2.70 2.70 2.70
62.43 62.43 62.43
LB-1
Olive brown lean clay (CL)
Sample Diameter(in):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):
Weight of Sample + ring(gm):
R-1
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):
Specific Gravity (Assumed):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Ring(gm):
Weight of Container(gm):
Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):
Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):
DS LB-1, R-1 @ 5
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf) (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 734 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 214 30 Final Moisture Content (%)
2.484
1.446
Olive brown lean clay (CL)
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LB-1
R-1
5 81.6
15.84 110.6
0.0017
4.000
3.782
2.546
0.0017
89.1 2.000
0.9928
15.84 21.2
1.000
2.415
1.0127
24.1 113.9
1.000
2.415
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
1.000
1.383
0.764
0.0017
15.84 108.0
2.415
Soil Identification:
03-24
Project No.: 036.0000022167
76.4 1.0122
1.000
26.3 McDonald's Hawthorne
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00 1.00
2.00 3.00
4.00 5.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-1, R-1 @ 5
Project Name: McDonald's Hawthorne Tested By : K. Jumig Date: 03/27/24 Project No. : 036.0000022167 Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/22/24 Boring No. LB-1
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0.0
0.00 0.00
1.00 0.00
100.39
10 300
860
9:10/9:55
45 58.5128
58.5072
0.0056
230.44
230
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.4
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 40
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 40
8.14 20.5
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Very dark
brown CH
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:
Time In / Time Out
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Temperature °C
pH Value
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
Project Name: Tested By : Date:
Project No. : Checked By: J. Ward Date:
Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
15.38 1050 Wt. of Container (g)
0.00 0.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
1 2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
20 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
1050
1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
4 30
3 40 30.76 820 130.06
760
750 24.5 230 40 8.14 20.5
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
760
820
0.00 1.00
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
McDonald's Hawthorne 03/29/24
04/22/24
0.0 036.0000022167
LB-1
K. Jumig
B-1
Container No.
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant
Very dark brown CH
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
23.07 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
Tested By: J. Domingo Date: 03/27/24
Checked By: J. Ward Date: 04/22/24
Depth (ft.):
B-1
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container No. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h Project No.: 036.0000022167
Boring No.:
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name:
LB-1
McDonald's Hawthorne
1000.00
0.00 1000.00
0.00 0.0
Sample No.:
Soil Identification: Very dark brown fat clay (CH)
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
100.00
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0830
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 603.00 445.43
Wt. of Mold (g) 203.01 0.00
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Container No. OO
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 808.60 648.44
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 738.50 568.45
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 203.01
Moisture Content (%) 9.49 21.89
Wet Density (pcf) 120.7 124.1
Dry Density (pcf) 110.2 101.8
Void Ratio 0.530 0.656
Total Porosity 0.346 0.396
Pore Volume (cc) 71.7 88.8
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 48.4 90.1
Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
10 03/27/24 14:00 1.0 0 0.5350
03/27/24 14:10 0.5330
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
03/27/24 15:50 1.0 100 0.5905
1.0 0.6175
03/28/24 9:24 1.0 1154 0.6180
03/28/24 7:58 1.0 1068
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 85 PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 036.0000022167
BORING NUMBER: LB-4 DEPTH (FT.): 0.0
SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Very dark brown fat clay (CH) DATE COMPLETED: 3/28/2024 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches
DRY DENSITY, pcf
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)
TURNS DISPLACEMENT
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED N/A N/A N/A
R-VALUE CORRECTED N/A N/A N/A
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. N/A N/A N/A
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. N/A N/A N/A
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: N/A
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: N/A
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: < 5
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
McDonald's Hawthorne
0.00 0.50
1.00 1.50
2.00 2.50
3.00 3.50
4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Material extruded at ends of
sample; R‐Value is less than 5
APPENDIX C
EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX C
L E IGHTON CONSULTING, INC.
EARTHWORK AND GRADIN G GUIDE SPECIFICATIO NS
TAB LE OF CONTENTS
Section Appendix C Page
C-1.0 GENERAL........................................................................................................... 1 C-1.1 Intent ............................................................................................................. 1 C-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc.................................................................... 1 C-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor ............................................................................. 1 C-2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED ..................................................... 2 C-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................................. 2 C-2.2 Processing..................................................................................................... 3 C-2.3 Overexcavation ............................................................................................. 3 C-2.4 Benching ....................................................................................................... 3 C-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas .............................................................. 3 C-3.0 FILL MATERIAL ................................................................................................. 4 C-3.1 Fill Quality...................................................................................................... 4 C-3.2 Oversize ........................................................................................................ 4 C-3.3 Import ............................................................................................................ 4 C-4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................... 4 C-4.1 Fill Layers...................................................................................................... 4 C-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning .............................................................................. 5 C-4.3 Compaction of Fill.......................................................................................... 5 C-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes.............................................................................. 5 C-4.5 Compaction Testing ...................................................................................... 5 C-4.6 Compaction Test Locations........................................................................... 5 C-5.0 EXCAVATION..................................................................................................... 6 C-6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS........................................................................................ 6 C-6.1 Safety ............................................................................................................ 6 C-6.2 Bedding and Backfill...................................................................................... 6 C-6.3 Lift Thickness ................................................................................................ 7 C-1
C - 1.0 GENERAL
C-1.1 Intent
These Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications are for grading and earthwork shown on the current, approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. geotechnical report(s). These Guide Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the project-specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these Guide Specifications. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and grading. Based on these observations and tests, Leighton Consulting, Inc. may provide new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
C-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc.
Prior to commencement of earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall meet with the earthwork contractor to review the earthwork contractor’s work plan, to schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping and compaction testing. During earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe, map, and document subsurface exposures to verify geotechnical design assumptions. If observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate these observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include (1) natural ground after clearing to receiving fill but before fill is placed, (2) bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, (3) all key bottoms, and (4) benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials, and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained relative compaction. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide Daily Field Reports to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
C-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The earthwork contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Guide Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-2
responsible for performing grading and backfilling in accordance with the current, approved plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall inform the owner and Leighton Consulting, Inc. of changes in work schedules at least one working day in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that Leighton Consulting, Inc. is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish earthwork and grading in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Guide Specifications, and recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of Leighton Consulting, Inc., unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that earthwork and grading be stopped until unsatisfactory condition(s) are rectified.
C - 2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED
C-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies and Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Care should be taken not to encroach upon or otherwise damage native and/or historic trees designated by the Owner or appropriate agencies to remain. Pavements, flatwork or other construction should not extend under the “drip line” of designated trees to remain.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 3 percent of organic materials (by dry weight: ASTM D 2974). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-3
of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
C-2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill, by Leighton Consulting, Inc., shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches (15 cm). Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following Section C-2.3. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
C-2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organicrich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. All undocumented fill soils under proposed structure footprints should be excavated C-2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (>20 percent grade) the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet (4.5 m) wide and at least 2 feet (0.6 m) deep, into competent material as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet (1.2 m) into competent material or as otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (<20 percent grade) shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
C-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance (Daily Field Report) from Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys and benches.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-4
C - 3.0 FILL MATERIAL
C-3.1 Fill Quality
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc. or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
C-3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches (15 cm), shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet (3 m) measured vertically from finish grade, or within 2 feet (0.61 m) of future utilities or underground construction.
C-3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section C-3.1, and be free of hazardous materials (“contaminants”) and rock larger than 3-inches (8 cm) in largest dimension. All import soils shall have an Expansion Index (EI) of 20 or less and a sulfate content no greater than (≤) 500 partsper-million (ppm). A representative sample of a potential import source shall be given to Leighton Consulting, Inc. at least four full working days before importing begins, so that suitability of this import material can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
C - 4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND C OMPACTION
C-4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill, as described in Section C-2.0, above, in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches (20 cm) in loose thickness. Leighton Consulting, Inc. may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-5
C-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557.
C-4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, each layer shall be uniformly compacted to not-less-than (≥) 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. In some cases, structural fill may be specified (see project-specific geotechnical report) to be uniformly compacted to atleast (≥) 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 modified Proctor laboratory maximum dry density. For fills thicker than (>) 15 feet (4.5 m), the portion of fill deeper than 15 feet below proposed finish grade shall be compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
C-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by back rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet (1 to 1.2 m) in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.
C-4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Location and frequency of tests shall be at our field representative(s) discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
C-4.6 Compaction Test Locations
Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each density test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that Leighton Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-6
Consulting, Inc. can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. Adequate grade stakes shall be provided.
C - 5.0 EXCAVATION
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by Leighton Consulting, Inc. based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, then observed and reviewed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc..
C - 6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS
C-6.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. Work should be performed in accordance with Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders, 2009 Edition or more current (see also:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb4a6.html ).
C-6.2 Bedding and Backfill
All utility trench bedding and backfill shall be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the 2018 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). Bedding shall be placed to 1-foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and densified by jetting in areas of granular soils, if allowed by the permitting agency.
Otherwise, the pipe-bedding zone should be backfilled with Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of at least one sack of Portland cement per cubic-yard of sand, and conforming to Section 201-6 of the 2018 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Backfill over the bedding zone shall be placed and densified mechanically to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) from 1 foot (0.3 m) above the top of the conduit to the surface. Backfill above the pipe zone shall not be jetted. Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and backfill above the pipe zone (bedding) shall be observed and tested by Leighton Consulting, Inc..
Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications C-7
C-6.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to Leighton Consulting, Inc. that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve.
APPENDIX D
GBA - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS
GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnicalengineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnicalengineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnicalengineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform constructionphase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.
Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Attachment C
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan
(To be provided during final design)
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Attachment D
Plans
81 81
82 82
81 81
81 82 STOP STOP 12.86'
29.91' CL - FC 12.16'
4.38'
2.46'
7.43' 61.58' 107.91' 9.14' 45.31' 44.11' 41.73' 153.38' 46.44'
61.19' 45.75'
6.14' CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
CL OF DRIVE
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING CL - FC CL - FC
BLD CLEAR
BLD CLEAR
ON-SITE BENCHMARK SET MAG NAIL & SHINER
ELEV= 82.10 FEET
OH ELEC
OH COMM
OH COMM
OH ELEC OH COMM
10" SEWER 8" SEWER 8" SEWER 8" SEWER STORM STORM
8" SEWER
6" WATER 8" WATER 8" WATER 8" WATER 8" SEWER 8" SEWER 4" WATER 4" WATER 4" WATER 16" WATER 16" WATER 16" WATER 6" WATER 6" WATER
STORM MH
INV= 78.86
STORM MH
INV= 78.72
STORM MH
INV= 77.47
STORM MH
INV= 78.09
STORM MH
INV= 79.40 SEWER MH
INV= 72.00
STORM MH
INV= 72.47
SEWER MH
INV= 70.54
SEWER MH
INV= 71.02
SEWER MH
INV= 75.35
STORM MH
INV= 78.15
PIPE
GAS METER
WATER METER
WATER METER
WATER METER
WATER METER
WATER METER
SEALED W/ASPHALT
McDONALD'S
(4584 PROTO)
±3,781 SF
(EV
CAPABLE) (EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
MOBILE
ORDER
MOBILE
ORDER
MOBILE
ORDER
McDelivery OOSP McDelivery
W 133RD STREET
(MASSACHUSETTS AVE) PUBLIC R.O.W.
SOUTH INGLEWOOD AVENUE
PUBLIC R.O.W.
W 134TH STREET
(RHODE ISLAND AVENUE) PUBLIC R.O.W. DRIVE THRU
ONLY OOSP DRIVE THRU
THANK
YOU
DRIVE
THRU THRU DRIVE MOBILE
ORDER
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
8/19/2024
L NA IO
REENI GNE
OFESS PR DER
I A
I FO NR
T
F CA E O TA
L
SI GER S
ET
C 87468 A M
E
L I A M B E L T
R
A N
C I V I L
13324 INGLEWOOD AVE,
HAWTHORNE, CA MCDONALD'S 4-5205
TITLE: PROJECT: LOCATION:
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT WAS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. COPYRIGHT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 2020 K:\ORA_LDEV\McDonalds\194015042 - Hawthorne (4-5205)\CADD\Exhibits\Reports\WQMP\Preliminary WQMP Plan.dwg 1 - Preliminary WQMP Plan Aug 19, 2024 12:35pm by: lupita.astorga JOB NUMBER:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET:
094797XXX
1 OF 1 1100 W TOWN AND COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 700 |ORANGE, CA 92868 PHONE: (714) 939-1030 | www.kimley-horn.com
8/19/2024
NORTH
SCALE
LID SUMMARY
PRELIMINARY
LID PLAN
1 OF 1
LEGEND
DRAINAGE KEYNOTES
Low Impact Development Plan (LID Plan)
McDonalds 4-5205
Attachment E
Supporting Documents
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 8/19/2024 at 4:25 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8 B
20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
118°21'58"W 33°54'55"N
118°21'21"W 33°54'26"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-19
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU-2024-0007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU-2024-0007 FOR A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AT 13324 S. INGLEWOOD AVE., IN THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
WHEREAS, Scott Wilkeson (Applicant), filed a complete application requesting the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP} for a drive-thru restaurant in accordance with Hawthorne Municipal Code (HMC} Chapter 17.26; and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to a property located at 13324 S. Inglewood Ave., Hawthorne, California, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 4042-011-026 and 4042-011-024 ("Property"}; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Property as General Commercial and the zoning as General Commercial (C-3}; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the HMC Chapters 17.26 and 17.28 a drive-thru restaurant requires the granting of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, for Infill Development Projects; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing on the project was held before the Planning Commission where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, evidence was heard and presented from all persons in favor of the application, from all persons opposed to the application and from members of the City staff; and that the Planning Commission having heard and received all of said evidence, testimony, and statements and being fully informed of the application.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Based upon independent review and consideration of the written and oral comments of interested parties thereon, the responses thereto by City staff, the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A} as well as the entire record of its proceedings, and having exercised its independent judgement thereon, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA State Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 which exempts projects consistent with both the general plan and zoning designations and regulations. The proposed Planning Commission Resolution 2024-19 1
use would occur within city limits on a site significantly less than five acres and surrounded by urban uses. Additionally, the subject site is not home to endangered species and will therefore not jeopardize the habitat of rare or threatened species. The proposal also complies with Class 32 exemptions due to the site's location in an area already served by utility and public service providers.
SECTION 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the November 20, 2024, public meeting, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a CUP is authorized by this code, as follows:
As discussed above, the project site is located in the C-3 zone. HMC Section 17.28.020 permits uses in the C-3 zone that are permitted in the C-2 zone and subject to the same regulations as in the C-2 zone. As such, a conditional use permit is a proper use.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located, as follows:
The project location in the General Commercial zone is intended for commercial activity and development, including restaurants. Through careful design and subsequent design review, the drive-thru will be oriented in a way to minimize interference with the adjoining commercial and residential land uses.
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety.
The proposed structure is 3, 781 sq. ft. which covers 10% of the existing 37,500 square foot lot. The site can easily accommodate the new building and proposed parking. The portion of the site dedicated to the drive-thru is adequate to accommodate a queue of vehicles. Additionally, the drive-thru entrance is proposed to be 24 ft. wide, accommodating two lanes and two ordering stations. This style of drive-thru design provides additional queuing space.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
The purpose of a drive-thru is to collect cars in an orderly queue to receive service.
The proposed queue demonstrates ample space to accommodate vehicles and minimize overflow into the establishment's parking lot and adjacent streets. The drivethru will be accessible via curb cuts on two streets, Inglewood Ave. and 134th Street.
The drive-thru will have signage and directional arrows guiding traffic in one direction.
The Applicant and the City will take an additional precaution to reduce the burden of traffic at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 133rd Street. A curb cut on the Planning Commission Resolution 2024-19 2
property along 133rd Street will serve as an exit only, directing vehicles toward Inglewood Avenue. This will mitigate the potential for vehicle stacking on 133rd St.
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Hawthorne.
Provisions of the HMC permit drive-thru restaurants with the approval of a CUP. The findings above demonstrate the project's conformity to the surrounding land uses and regulations of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the conditions of approval enumerated in Exhibit A, subject the project to review by agencies such as Fire, Police, and others regulating public safety.
SECTION 4. Based on the forgoing, the Planning Commission hereby grants Conditional Use Permit CU-2024-0007 subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
SECTION 5. This resolution shall become effective 10 days after its adoption, unless within that period of time it is appealed to the City Council. In the event of an appeal, this resolution shall not become effective unless reinstated by the City Council after the hearing on the appeal. The City Council resolution determining the appeal shall be controlling, and unless the matter is remanded to the Planning Commission, the resolution of the City Council shall be final.
SECTION 6. A copy of this resolution shall be mailed to the applicant and copies shall be filed with the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20th day of November 2024.
ATTEST: R
~ Q ____
GREGG McCLAIN, SECRETARY
Planning Commission Resolution 2024-19 3
Application:
Applicant:
Owner:
Authorized Agent:
Location:
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU-2024-0007
CU-2024-0007
SCOTT WILKESON, MCDONALD'S USA, LLC
11383 PLAYA STREET LLC C/O PERRY G. DE LUNA
ROBERT PREECE
13324 S. INGLEWOOD AVE. & 13324 W. 133rd ST.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval are unique provisions, beyond the requirements of law, the municipal code, or standard practices that are applied to a project per Section 17.40.050 of the Zoning Code. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the conditions of approval may also change. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the City of Hawthorne.
1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements and provisions set forth by the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Hawthorne Municipal Code (HMC), and any additional requirements by the Fire Department, Director of Building and Safety, or Director of Planning, as related to this application.
2. The property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the floor plans received, and approved by the Planning Commission and as conditioned by the requirements contained in this resolution of approval. Any deviation from said plans shall first be reviewed by the Planning Department to determine whether proposed modifications are within the scope of approval.
3. The applicant and subsequent property owners/tenants must conform to all Business License regulations and maintain a current city license at all times.
4. All signage on the property shall comply with Chapter 17.35 of the HMC.
5. Signs shall be posted on the site per CA Penal Code Sections 552 through 555.5 and 11532 to prohibit loitering on the property.
6. The number of persons shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Fire Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the approved sign near the main exit from the building.
7. Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours of its discovery.
8. Signage and pavement arrows to direct internal traffic shall be included on plans, subject to City approval.
9. Property owners shall keep parking lot clean at all times.
Exhibit A 1
10. All direct lighting produced by the development must be contained on site. The Owner/Applicant shall ensure any exterior night lighting and illuminated signage installed on the project site is of low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and shall be hooded to direct light downward onto the subject lot and prevent spill-over onto the adjacent residential lots.
11. The applicant shall ensure all exterior noise generated by the project, such as that generated by the drive-thru ordering system, will comply with Section 9.34.030 Exterior Noise Standards of the Hawthorne Municipal Code. This section provides for an allowable noise level not to exceed 70 dBA between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm and 65 DBA between 10:00ppm and 7:00 am, as measured at the site property lines.
12. All County Fire Department requirements must be met before any building permits will be released.
13. Off-street parking shall be provided at all times in accordance with the originally approved site plan and, per Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, shall be maintained in a clean and attractive manner (striping maintained, pot-holes and cracks repaired, and trash, litter, or other materials shall be removed regularly).
14. Per Municipal Code Chapter 8.14, all landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance with the originally approved landscaped plan and in a healthy and well-kept condition and kept weed-free.
15. The approved conditions of approval shall be included on building plans upon submission.
16. The Applicant shall ensure patrons do not block loading areas or trash enclosures during hours of operation.
17. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2024, as conditioned by the requirements contained in the resolution of approval for Conditional Use Permit Application CU-2024-0007. Any more intensive use of the property, or deviation from said plans, shall first be reviewed as a modification of this permit.
18. The applicant shall commence construction of the structure or establish the use that is authorized by this approval within three (3) years of the effective date of this approval. Failure to commence construction of the structure or establish the use within that three-year time period shall render this approval null and void any attempt to commence construction or establish the use thereafter shall first require approval of a new application. Applications for a time extension to the commencement date as specified herein must be filed a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Director may renew the approval for a single one-year period if a request is received at least 30 calendar days before approval lapses. Requests for a time extension must be accompanied by a formal application, all required exhibits and plans, and the required application fees. Any additional requests for extension shall require Planning Commission approval.
Exhibit A 2
19. The Applicant/property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any permit, including building, grading, or demolition.
20. The Applicant shall pay the applicable public facility impact fees to the Building and Safety Department in the amount that is in effect at the time such fees are to be collected.
21. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements and provisions set forth by the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Hawthorne Municipal Code (HMC), and any additional requirements by the Fire Department, Director of Building and Safety, or Director of Planning, as related to this application.
22. All signs, banners, or other outside advertising materials or structures on the property must be approved by the City and shall comply with Chapter 17.35 of the HMC.
23. No outside display of goods, wares, or merchandise shall be permitted, unless approved by the Planning Director.
24. Per the Department of Public Works - Abide by requirements as requested in memo dated September 10, 2024.
25. The applicant shall provide signage and a barrier at the vehicle egress point located at W. 133rd St. to guide cars left onto the street as shown in the attached diagram.
Exhibit A 3
---- w 133RD STREET< L
-- -~--I 1 :~ ~GNP:ST ll iN~~~~ --- --- -: __ r - r "". ,. ---~ --.--I ' ONLY
--"A
ElllCK
R3-5
L-EFfTU-RNONL Y
W 133RD STREET
(MASSACHUSETTS AVE)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
, n
~ PROPOSED SIGN POST
WRONG
WAY
R5-1a
.-------11® BAO<
R3-1
PROPERTY LINE
rr--1
c / •
Traffic Impact Assessment
McDonald's Hawthorne
(Inglewood & 133rd) 4-5205
Traffic Impact Assessment
City of Hawthorne
4455 West 126th Street
Hawthorne, CA 90250
December 2024
Prepared By:
Traffic Impact Assessment 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................1 I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................3 Project Description...........................................................................................................................3 II. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................6 Study Area.......................................................................................................................................6 Analysis Scenarios ..........................................................................................................................6 Study Methodology and Analysis Criteria .........................................................................................6 Existing Street System.....................................................................................................................8 Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................9 Existing (2024) Operations...............................................................................................................9 III. Cumulative (2035) Conditions Without Project .......................................................................... 13 Volume Development and Ambient (2035) Growth......................................................................... 13 Cumulative Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... 13 Cumulative (2035) Operations ....................................................................................................... 13 IV. Proposed Project Conditions...................................................................................................... 16 Project Traffic ................................................................................................................................ 16 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment........................................................................................ 16 Existing (2024) With Project Operations......................................................................................... 16 Cumulative (2035) With Project Operations.................................................................................... 22 Senate Bill 743 (SB 743)................................................................................................................ 25 Screening Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 25 Retail Project Trip Generation Screening................................................................................ 25 Proximity to Transit-Based Screening..................................................................................... 26 Residential Land Use Based Screening ................................................................................. 26 Low VMT-Generation Area Screening.................................................................................... 26 Screening Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 26 V. Sight Distance Analysis............................................................................................................... 27 VI. Left Turn Pocket Analysis ........................................................................................................... 29 VII. Crosswalk Warrant Analysis ....................................................................................................... 30 FHWA Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 30 CA MUTCD Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 31 VIII. Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 32 Traffic Impact Assessment 2
Figures
Figure 1: Project Location.....................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Project Site Plan.....................................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Existing Lane Configurations.............................................................................................. 11 Figure 4 Existing Peak Hour Volumes................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5: Future Peak Hour Volumes.................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: With Project Lane Configurations....................................................................................... 17 Figure 7: Trip Distribution................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Project Trips......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Existing With Project Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Cumulative With Project Peak Hour Volumes................................................................... 23 Figure 11: Driveways Sight Distance Analysis .................................................................................. 28 Tables
Table 1: Project Study Intersections.....................................................................................................6 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...............................................................................7 Table 3: 2021 Seasonal Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................9 Table 4: Existing (2024) Intersection Level of Service.........................................................................9 Table 5: Cumulative (2035) Level of Service ...................................................................................... 15 Table 6: Net Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................. 16 Table 7: Intersection LOS Comparison – Existing (2024) Without Project vs With Project ............. 21 Table 8: Intersection LOS Comparison – Cumulative (2035) Without Project vs With Project ........ 24 Table 9: FHWA Countermeasures....................................................................................................... 30 Appendices
Appendix A – Approved Project Scoping Agreement
Appendix B – Turning Movement Counts and Average Daily Traffic Counts Appendix C – LOS Worksheets
Appendix D – Traffic Signal Warrant Study
Appendix E – City of Hawthorne VMT Calculator
Appendix F – CA MUTCD PHB Guidelines
Traffic Impact Assessment 3
I. Introduction
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (“Kimley-Horn”) was contracted by McDonalds (“Client”) to prepare a traffic study for the proposed McDonalds’ at 13324 South Inglewood Avenue (“Project”) in the City of Hawthorne (“City”). This traffic study was prepared in accordance with the scoping agreement which outlines the methodology, requirements, and impact criteria of the traffic operational and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. The scope of work is also based on a review of the Los Angeles County Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (July 2020) and discussions with City Staff. The Project study scoping agreement can be found in Appendix A.
Project Description
The proposed Project is to consist of a 3,781 square-foot Fast Food Restaurant with a Drive-Thru on an empty site on the east side of Inglewood Avenue, between 133rd Street and 134th Street. The Project location and study area is shown in Figure 1 and is anticipated to have an Opening Year of 2025. The proposed preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown in Figure 2. As indicated on Figure 2, access to the Project site will be provided via driveways on W 133rd Street, W 134th Street, and on Inglewood Avenue.
1 2
4 3
LEGEND
Study Intersections
VICINITY MAP
#
Project Site
FIGURE 1 - STUDY AREA
2 4
3 1
81 81
82 82
81 81
81 82
OH COMM
O
H
C
O
M
M
O
H
C
O
M
M
McDONALD'S
(4584 PROTO)
±3,781 SF
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
S
O
U
T
H IN
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
AV
E
N
U
E
P
U
B
LIC
R.O.W.
W 134TH STREET
(RHODE ISLAND AVENUE)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
W 133RD STREET
(MASSACHUSETTS AVE)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
EZEQUIEL & SUSANA ACEVES
APN: 4042-011-023
LOT 321 OF MB 12/182-183
LOT 261 OF MB 12/182-183
11383 PLAYA STREET LLC
APN: 4042-011-027
13314 INGLEWOOD AVE
HAWTHORNE, CA 90250
245 E THIRD ST
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
562-549-2142
Know what's
R McDonald's USA, LLC
9/23/2024
C 87468 PRELIMINARY SITE C1.0
PLAN
NORTH
SCALE
LEGEND:
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
SITE DATA
·
·
TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CITY OF
HAWTHORNE
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
ROSECRANS AVE
105
PROJECT SITE
W 135TH ST
W EL SEGUNDO BLVD
W 120TH ST
IMPERIAL HWY
CRENSHA
W BLVD
PRAIRIE AVE
HAWTHORNE BLVD
S INGLEW
O
OD A
VE
SAN DIEG
O FW
Y
CENTURY FWY
405
W 134TH ST
W 133RD ST
RA
M
ONA
AVE
FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN
Traffic Impact Assessment 6
II. Methodology
The Project study area, analysis scenarios, and analysis methodology were established in consultation with City of Hawthorne staff through a scoping letter agreement which was approved on June 27, 2024. The approved scoping letter is incorporated as a reference in Appendix A.
Study Area
Based on discussion with the City and review of the Project area, site, and access points, key intersections in the proximity of the Project site were identified for analysis. The study area included the following intersections shown in Table 1:
Table 1: Project Study Intersections
# Intersection Jurisdiction Signalized
1 Inglewood Ave & W 132nd Street Hawthorne Yes
2 Inglewood Ave & W 133rd Street Hawthorne No
3 Inglewood Ave & 134th Street Hawthorne No
4 Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (E) Hawthorne Yes
Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (W) Hawthorne Yes
Three driveways are proposed for the site; one full access driveway is proposed on Inglewood Avenue, one exit only driveway on 133rd Street and one full access driveway on 134th Street per the site plan (Figure 2).
A map depicting the study intersections is shown in Figure 1.
Analysis Scenarios
This traffic analysis provides an evaluation of weekday morning and evening peak hour operations for the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2024) conditions
• Existing Year (2024) with Project conditions
• Cumulative without Project (2035) conditions
• Cumulative with Project (2035) conditions
Each study scenario will include weekday morning (AM) peak hour and weekday evening (PM) peak hour analysis.
Study Methodology and Analysis Criteria
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), approved in 2013, mandated a change in the way transportation impacts are determined according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) directed the use of VMT as the replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) for purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA. Although traffic delay is no longer considered a significant impact, cities can still use LOS to inform local analysis, such as traffic operations and traffic signal timing needs. Hence, the LOS analysis will be performed for the traffic operational assessment of the study intersections. A separate VMT analysis is included later in this report as part of the Project.
This traffic analysis focuses on the study intersections near the Project site during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours. Level of service (LOS) analysis will be conducted for peak hour Traffic Impact Assessment 7
intersection operations at signalized and unsignalized intersections using the methods prescribed in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition. The traffic analysis will be conducted using the latest version of the Synchro Software and the definitions for each level of service can be seen below in Table 2.
Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions
LOS Intersection
Signalized
Intersection
Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Control Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A
Excellent operation. All approaches to the
intersection appear quite open, turning
movements are easy and nearly all drivers find
freedom of operation.
≤10 ≤10
B
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel
somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles.
This represents stable flow. An approach to an
intersection may occasionally be fully utilized
and traffic queues start to form.
>10 and ≤20 >10 and ≤15
C
Good operation. Occasionally backups may
develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers
feel somewhat restricted.
>20 and ≤35 >15 and ≤25
D
Fair operation. There are no long-standing
traffic queues. This level is typically associated
with design practice for peak periods.
>35 and ≤55 >25 and ≤35
E
Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular
queues develop on critical approaches. >55 and ≤80 >35 and ≤50 F
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions.
Backups from locations downstream or on the
cross street may restrict or prevent movements
of vehicles out of the intersection approach
lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not
predictable. Potential for stop-and-go type
traffic flow.
>80 >50 or v/c > 1
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7
th Edition
For intersections within the City, LOS D or better will be considered as acceptable. If Project traffic causes operations at an intersection to go from acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable (LOS E or F), the Project would have a significant project-related impact at the intersection. If the intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F) without Project traffic, it is assumed that there would be no impact to the intersection.
Traffic Impact Assessment 8
Existing Conditions
The roadway system in the study area is comprised of a network of arterials, collector streets, and local streets. A brief description of each roadway within the study area is provided below.
Existing Street System
The key roadways in the vicinity of the Project Site and study area are:
• Inglewood Avenue – Inglewood Avenue is classified as a Major Arterial in the City of Hawthorne.
Oriented in the north-south direction, it is located along the west side of the Project Site. It has four travel lanes in the study area, two lanes in each direction. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the road along Inglewood Avenue within the study area. • W 132nd Street – West 132nd Street is classified as a Local Street in the City of Hawthorne. Oriented in the east-west direction, it is located north of the Project Site with access to travel in both directions. On-street parking is provided on the south side of the road along 132nd Street within the study area (east of Inglewood Avenue) to provide parking for the residents. • W 133rd Street – West 133rd Street is classified as a Local Street in the City of Hawthorne. Oriented in the east-west direction, it is fronting the northside of the Project Site with access to travel in both directions. On-street parking is provided on the north side of the road along 133rd Street within the study area (east of Inglewood Avenue) to provide parking for the residents. • W 134th Street – West 134th Street is classified as a Local Street in the City of Hawthorne. Oriented in the east-west direction, it is fronting the southside of the Project Site with access to travel in both directions. On-street parking is provided on the south side of the road along 134 th Street within the
study area (east of Inglewood Avenue) to provide parking for the residents. • W 135th Street – West 135th Street is classified as a Collector Street in the City of Hawthorne.
Oriented in the east-west direction, it is located south of the Project Site with access to travel in both directions. On-street parking is provided on the north side of the road along 135th Street within the study area (east of Inglewood Avenue) to provide parking for the residents.
Traffic Impact Assessment 9
Existing (2024) Traffic Volumes
Weekday morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4-6 PM) peak period intersection turning movement counts were collected at the four (4) study intersections on July 9, 2024. A seasonal adjustment was applied to the traffic data to account for the summer season when schools are out of session. The seasonal adjustment factor was calculated using historical traffic data from Replica1 by comparing volumes from Summer 2021 and Fall 2021. Table 3 below compares the traffic volumes during the 2021 seasons and calculates the percent increase. A seasonal adjustment factor of 14.4% was applied to all existing traffic volumes.
Table 3: 2021 Seasonal Traffic Volumes
Volume
Location Volume Change Seasonal Factor
(Percent Increase) Summer 2021 Fall 2021
22,200 25,400 Inglewood Ave 3,200 14.4%
Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were collected on Inglewood Avenue between 133rd Street and 134th Street on the same day as the intersection counts. The 24-hour ADT counts include lane utilization along Inglewood Avenue.
The existing intersection lane configurations and control type are shown in Figure 3. The existing morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hour turning movement volumes with the seasonal adjustment factor are shown in Figure 4. Appendix B contains the intersection traffic count and ADT count sheets.
Existing (2024) Operations
Intersection level of service analysis was conducted for the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours using HCM methodology as previously described in this report. Table 4 summarizes the projected delay and LOS at the signalized and unsignalized study intersections. For TWSC intersections, the worst stop-controlled approach lane group control delay is reported.
Table 4: Existing (2024) Intersection Level of Service
No. Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(s/veh)
LOS Delay
(s/veh)
LOS
1 Inglewood Ave & 132nd Street Signalized 11.70 B 14.4 B 2 Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street TWSC 14.02 B 37.25 E
3 Inglewood Ave & 134th Street TWSC 14.79 B 32.52 D
4 Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (E) Signalized 11.60 B 4.7 A Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (W) Signalized 10.20 B 28.1 C 1 https://studio.replicahq.com/
Traffic Impact Assessment 10
As shown in Table 4 above, most intersections within the Study area are operating at an acceptable LOS (D or better). However, the intersection of Inglewood Ave and 133rd Street is operating at LOS E during the existing PM peak hour. The detailed intersection analysis LOS worksheets for all conditions are shown in Appendix C.
1 2
4 7
5 6
3 FIGURE 3 - EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATION STOP STOP Existing Traffic Signal
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
Lane Use STOP Stop Controlled Intersection
* Functional Right Turn
1 2
#
1 3 STOP
* STOP
*
*
*
*
* 14
*
* 52 62
72 1
2 4
3 FIGURE 4 - EXISTING (2024) INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
# 545(929) 0(22) 678(1246) 14(33) 26(19)
0(2)
10(11) 10(12) 569(946) 0(22) 9(16) 662(1221)
1(9)
0(2)
17(27) 3(12) 548(947) 0(35) 8(16) 668(1212)
5(3)
0(1)
9(16) 515(930) 15(35) 677(1227) 17(38) 34(18)
0(1)
11(7) 515(979) 39(145) 676(1202) 13(24) 30(26)
90(55) 71(24) 475(867) 94(53) 673(1231)
79(231)
54(156) 8(9) 545(898) 8(38) 5(13) 653(1208) 5(24) 8(16) 1(3)
10(23)
23(21)
3(2)
18(29)
11 2
3 4
Traffic Impact Assessment 13
III. Cumulative (2035) Conditions Without Project
Volume Development and Ambient (2035) Growth
Future volumes were determined by applying an ambient growth factor to the existing 2024 traffic volumes.
An annual growth factor of 0.2% was used based on City of Hawthorne population data provided by the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Demographics and Growth Forecast technical report adopted on September 3, 2020.
Cumulative Project Trip Generation
In addition to ambient growth, traffic volumes from cumulative projects (approved or pending projects expected to be built by the year 2035 within ½ mile of the proposed Project Site) were added to the study intersections to simulate future traffic conditions with expected new development in the area. The list of related projects was provided by LA County in an email on July 25th, 2024. The City of Hawthorne did not have any approved or pending projects within ½ mile of the Project site. Appendix D lists the cumulative projects and total trip generation that was assigned to the Project study intersections. The cumulative projects’ traffic volumes were added to both the cumulative with and without project scenarios as part of this analysis. As shown in Appendix D, the cumulative projects in the area are expected to generate 1,234 daily trips, 91 during the morning (AM) peak hour, and 122 during the evening (PM) peak hour.
Cumulative (2035) Operations
Intersection LOS analysis for the future horizon year was conducted for the weekday morning and evening peak hours using the HCM methodology. The resulting Project morning (AM) peak and evening (PM) peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5.
1 2
4 7
5 6
3 FIGURE 5 - FUTURE YEAR (2035) INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 31(27)
92(57)
1 2
3 4 6(25) 24(22)
19(30) 9(10) 9(39)
2(4)
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
# 573(939) 9(18) 683(1256)
10(19)
12(26)
7(7) 11(13) 597(989) 0(23) 11(19) 692(1270)
3(12)
19(30) 573(971) 0(23) 709(1925) 15(34) 31(25)
11(12) 4(13) 576(990) 12(21) 698(1260)
7(6)
11(19) 542(972) 16(36) 708(1276) 18(39) 35(19)
12(8) 543(1024) 40(149) 708(1252) 14(25) 73(25) 502(910) 100(59) 704(1282) 82(239)
56(162)
Traffic Impact Assessment 15
Table 5 below summarizes the projected LOS at the signalized study intersections for the future horizon year conditions without the planned McDonalds.
Table 5: Cumulative (2035) Level of Service
No. Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS
1 Inglewood Ave & 132nd Street Signalized 11.60 B 13.60 B 2 Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street TWSC 14.17 B 44.01 E
3 Inglewood Ave & 134th Street TWSC 15.92 C 33.79 D
4 Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (E) Signalized 8.10 A 4.10 A Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (W) Signalized 7.10 A 27.00 C As shown in Table 5 above, most intersections within the Study area are operating at an acceptable LOS (D or better). However, the intersection of Inglewood Ave and 133rd Street is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The improvement in LOS from Existing conditions to Cumulative conditions is because of the peak hour factor (PHF). The PHFs that were calculated from the counts ranged from approximately 0.6 to 0.9, which is considerably lower than the 0.92 default for future analysis. The detailed intersection analysis LOS worksheets for all conditions are shown in Appendix C.
Traffic Impact Assessment 16
IV. Proposed Project Conditions
Project Traffic
The first step in analyzing the traffic conditions with the Project is to estimate the number of new trips expected to be generated by the proposed Project. Trip generation estimates for the Project are based on daily and peak hour trip generation rates obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). Table 6 summarizes trip generation estimates for the Project and lists the specific land use for the Project.
Table 6: Net Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT1
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project Trips
Fast-Food
Restaurant w/
Drive-thru (ITE
Code: 934)
KSF 3.781 86 83 169 65 60 125 1768
Pass-by Trips (52.5% Daily,50%
AM, 55% PM) -43 -42 -85 -36 -33 -69 -928
Total Trip Generation 43 41 84 29 27 56 840
Trip Generation Rates
Fast-Food
Restaurant w/
Drive-thru
KSF 22.71 21.859 44.61 17.176 15.854 33.03 467.48
1ADT=Average Daily Traffic, the daily trips generated by a site, in vehicles.
Since the Project is a fast food restaurant with drive-thru, a trip reduction was applied to account for the pass-by trips for the commercial (restaurant) land use component of the Project. A pass-by trip is when a driver makes a stop on the way to their primary destination without changing their route. The driver is already on the road and is attracted to the site by passing it on an adjacent street. The pass-by trip reduction was calculated using ITE guidelines. Based on Table 6 shown above, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 840 net daily trips, 84 weekday morning (AM) peak hour trips, and 56 weekday evening (PM) peak hour trips.
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution patterns were developed to assign the Project trips across the roadway network within the study area. Figure 6 shows the new Project driveways and lane configurations. Figure 7 shows the trip distribution percentages at each of the study intersections and Figure 8 shows the corresponding Project trips at the intersections.
Existing (2024) With Project Operations
Existing (2024) with Project conditions add the Project traffic shown in Table 6 to the existing conditions to identify potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. The resulting existing with project morning (AM) peak and evening (PM) peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9. Table 7 summarizes the projected delay and LOS at the signalized and unsignalized study intersections and compares it to without Project existing conditions to assess any significant traffic impacts of the Project. The intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
1 2
4 7
5 6
3 FIGURE 6 - WITH PROJECT LANE CONFIGURATIONS STOP STOP 1 2
3 STOP
* STOP
*
*
*
*
*
14 *
*
25 61
STOP
7 STOP STOP
Existing Traffic Signal
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
Lane Use
STOP Stop Controlled Intersection
* Functional Right Turn
#
124 75 63
FIGURE 7 - PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
55%(0%)
0%(55%)
55%(0%)
0%(55%)
40%(0%)
0%(55%)0%(0%)
15%(0%)
40%(0%)
35%(0%)
0%(20%)0%(15%)
0%(55%)
5%(0%) 1 21 13 14 0%(35%) 40%(0) 0%(35%) 40%(0%)
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes # 0%(25%) 8 15%(0%) 9 0%(20%) 0%(25%) 0%(30%) 40%(0%)
25%(0%)
10 15%(0%)5%(0%)
0%(40%)
0%(10%) 35 36 7
124 75 63
FIGURE 8 - PROJECT TRIPS 1 23(15) 24(16)
23(15)
24(16)
16(11)
24(16)0(0)
6(4)
16(11)
14(9)
9(6)6(4)
24(16)
2(1)
15(10)
16(11)
15(10)
16(11) 2 3 4
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes # 11(7) 8 6(4) 9 9(6) 11(7) 13(8) 16(11)
10(7)
10 6(4)3(1)
17(12)
4(3) 5 6 7
1 2
4 7
5 6
3 9 551(959)
9(6)
679(1219)13(8)
16(11)
10(7)
10 6(4)3(1)
17(12)
32(73)
4(3)
45(25)
FIGURE 9 - EXISTING (2024) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1 8(9)
568(913)
8(38)
5(13)677(1224)5(24)
8(16)
1(3)
10(23)
23(21)
3(2)
18(29)
10(12)
592(961)
0(22)
9(16)686(1237)
1(9)
0(0)
17(27)
561(940)
0(22)
702(1262)
14(33)
32(23)
0(0)
10(11)
3(12)
564(958)
0(0)
8(16)
692(1228)
5(3)
0(0)
9(16)
524(936)
21(39)
691(1236)
28(45)
34(18)
0(0)
13(8)
530(989)
39(145)
692(1213)
13(24)
30(26)
90(55)
71(24)
490(877)
94(53)
689(1242)
79(231)
54(156)
1 2
3 4
6 7
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
#
8 6(4)
14(55)
36(30)
5 Traffic Impact Assessment
21 Table 7: Intersection LOS Comparison – Existing (2024) Without Project vs With Project No. Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing Existing with Project
Change
In Delay
Project
Related
Effect?
Existing Existing with Project
Change
in Delay
Project
Related
Effect? Delay
(s/veh)
LOS Delay
(s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS
1 Inglewood Ave & 132nd Street 11.70 B 11.80 B 0.10 No 14.40 B 14.50 B 0.10 No 2 Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 14.02 B 14.4 B 0.38 No 37.25 E 38.72 E 1.47 No 3 Inglewood Ave & 134th Street 14.79 B 14.99 B 0.20 No 32.52 D 36.17 E 3.65 No 4 Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (E) 11.60 B 11.50 B -0.10 No 4.70 A 4.7 A 0.00 No Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (W) 10.20 B 10.10 B -0.10 No 28.1 C 28.0 C -0.1 No 5 Project Driveway 1 – 133rd Street - - 8.73 A 8.80 No - - 8.94 A 8.94 No 6 Project Driveway 2 – Inglewood Ave - - 15.67 C 14.79 No - - 33.5 D 33.5 No 7 Project Driveway 3 – 134th Street - - 8.84 A 8.79 No - - 8.89 A 8.89 No As shown in Table 7 above, most intersections within the study area are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better). The proposed Project is anticipated to result in the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street being degraded from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The additional Project volumes during the PM peak hour would result in the increased delay of 3.65 seconds for the intersection. The detailed intersection analysis worksheets for all conditions are shown in Appendix C.
Traffic Impact Assessment
22 Cumulative (2035) With Project Operations
Cumulative (2035) with Project conditions add the Project traffic shown in Table 6 to the cumulative without Project conditions to identify potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. The resulting Cumulative with Project morning (AM) peak and evening (PM) peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure
10. Table 8 summarizes the projected delay and LOS at the signalized and unsignalized study intersections and compares it to without Project cumulative conditions to assess any significant traffic impacts of the Project. The intersection analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C. 1 2
4 7
5 6
3 FIGURE 10 - FUTURE YEAR (2035) WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION AM & PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1 2
3 4 6(25)
2(4)
15(34)
11(12)
3(12)
19(30)
0(0)
39(145)
13(24)
30(26)
90(55)
94(53)
79(231)
54(156)
1 12
31 14
LEGEND
Project Site
Intersection ID
XX(XX) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes
# 8(9) 568(913)
8(38)
9(18)
707(1272)
10(19)
12(26)
24(22)
7(7)
19(30)
11(13)
620(1004)
11(19)
716(1286)
589(982)
0(23)
733(1311)
37(29)
4(13)
592(1001)
12(21)
722(1276)
7(6)
11(19)
551(978)
22(40)
722(1285)
29(46)
35(19)
14(9)
530(989)
692(1213)
71(24)
490(877)
689(1242)
8 6(4)
15(57)
42(37)
9 580(1003)
9(6)
709(1267)13(8)
16(11)
10(7)
10 6(4)3(1)
17(12)
34(75)
4(3)
47(27)
315 361 371
Traffic Impact Assessment
24 Table 8: Intersection LOS Comparison – Cumulative (2035) Without Project vs With Project No. Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Cumulative Cumulative with
Project Change
In Delay
Project
Related
Effect?
Cumulative Cumulative with
Project Change
in Delay
Project
Related
Delay Effect?
(s/veh) LOS Delay(s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 Inglewood Ave & 132nd Street 11.60 B 11.60 B 0.00 No 13.60 B 13.70 B 0.10 No 2 Inglewood Ave & 133rd Street 14.17 B 14.15 B -0.02 No 44.01 E 45.94 E 1.93 No 3 Inglewood Ave & 134th Street 15.92 C 16.40 C 0.48 No 33.79 D 38.23 E 4.44 No 4 Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (E) 8.10 A 8.00 A -0.10 No 4.10 A 4.10 A 0.00 No Inglewood Ave & 135th Street (W) 7.10 A 7.00 A -0.10 No 27.00 C 26.80 C -0.20 No 5 Project Driveway 1 – 133rd Street - - 8.84 A 8.84 No - - 8.98 A 8.98 No 6 Project Driveway 2 – Inglewood Ave - - 15.40 C 15.40 No - - 37.16 E 37.16 No 7 Project Driveway 3 – 134th Street - - 8.81 A 8.81 No - - 8.91 A 8.91 No As shown in Table 8, most intersections within the study area are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS (D or better). The proposed Project is anticipated to result in the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street being degraded from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The additional Project volumes during the PM peak hour would result in the increased delay of 4.4 seconds for the intersection. The detailed intersection analysis worksheets for all conditions are shown in Appendix C.
Traffic Impact Assessment
25 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743)
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires project reviews under CEQA to evaluate the transportation impacts of new developments in terms of greenhouse gas emissions using VMT. As of December 2018, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the State CEQA Guidelines to incorporate SB 743 (i.e., VMT). To assist in implementation of VMT as the primary measure of a transportation impact under CEQA, the OPR published an updated Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory) in December 2018. Statewide application of the new guidelines went into effect on July 1, 2020.
The City of Hawthorne adopted their VMT policy on May 23, 2023.
Screening Criteria
To identify when a project may be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT without conducting a detailed study, the OPR Guidelines provide screening criteria for land development projects that meet one of the screening criteria below:
• Non-Retail Project Trip Generation Screening: The development project generates a net increase of fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips.
• Projects Near High Quality Transit: The development project is located near (within one-half mile) an existing major transit stop2 or a high-quality transit corridor3. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the project:
o Has a floor area ratio of less than 0.75;
o Includes more parking than required by the jurisdiction; o Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy; o Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate residential units. • Affordable Housing: The development project has 100% affordable units excluding manager's units.
• Local-Serving Retail/Essential Service: The development project contains retail or local essential services uses fewer than 50,000 SF of gross floor area. • Low VMT-Generation Area Screening: The development project is located in a low VMT area.
A development project needs to meet only one of the above screening criteria to be presumed to have a less than significant impact on transportation and circulation, under CEQA and pursuant to SB 743.
Retail Project Trip Generation Screening
The Project includes only a retail component (3,781 SF Fast Food Restaurant). Based on the above screening criteria, the Project would screen out of VMT analysis because the 3,781 SF restaurant is less 2 The OPR Technical Advisory defines a “major transit stop” as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods (California Public Resources Code §21064.3).
3 The OPR Technical Advisory defines a “high-quality transit corridor” as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours (California Public Resources Code §21155).
Traffic Impact Assessment
26 than the 50,000 gross SF screening criterion. The retail component of the Project can be local-serving in nature and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Proximity to Transit-Based Screening
Currently, there are no transit routes near the proposed Project that meet the criteria to be considered a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor. Therefore, the Project does not screen out of a VMT analysis based on transit priority area screening.
Residential Land Use Based Screening
Residential development projects with 100% affordable units would screen out of VMT analysis and presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. However, the proposed Project does not propose any residential land uses. Therefore, the Project does not screen out of a VMT analysis based on affordable units.
Low VMT-Generation Area Screening
The City of Hawthorne’s VMT calculator was used to estimate the Project VMT to compare it to the county threshold (15% below the average). The results from the VMT calculator are shown in Appendix E.
Because the proposed Project is in a low VMT area, the Project screens out of a VMT analysis based on the low VMT-Generation Area screening criteria.
Screening Conclusion
The proposed Project meets two of the above screening criteria (Retail Project Site Plan Screening and Low VMT-Generation Area screening). The Project would screen out of further VMT analysis based on the land-use, size, and low VMT area and is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA pursuant to SB 743.
Traffic Impact Assessment
27 V. Sight Distance Analysis
A sight distance analysis was conducted for the Project driveway along Inglewood Avenue. The analysis identified the potential parking restrictions that will be needed as a part of the Project and will be based on the stopping sight distance criteria established in the latest American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2018. For Inglewood Avenue, the sight distance analysis assumed a design speed of 35 miles per hour (mph) based on the posted speed limit, which requires 250 feet of stopping sight distance. The sight triangles for the three Project driveways are shown in Figure 11 on the next page. To provide a clear line of sight for vehicles exiting the Inglewood Avenue driveway, 48 feet of red curb north of the driveway and 45 feet of red curb south of the driveway is recommended.
Along 133rd Street, existing on street parking is only allowed on the north side of the street. Along 134th Street, existing on street parking is only allowed on the south side of the street. Since on-street parking is restricted on the driveway sides of the streets, no sight distance analysis was required for the driveways along 133rd Street and 134th Street. Therefore, no additional parking restrictions are required for the driveways along 133rd Street and 134th Street.
81 81
82 82
81 81
81 82
OH COMM
O
H
C
O
M
M
O
H
C
O
M
M
McDONALD'S
(4584 PROTO)
±3,781 SF
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
(EV
CAPABLE)
S
O
U
T
H IN
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
AV
E
N
U
E
P
U
B
LIC
R.O.W.
W 134TH STREET
(RHODE ISLAND AVENUE)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
W 133RD STREET
(MASSACHUSETTS AVE)
PUBLIC R.O.W.
EZEQUIEL & SUSANA ACEVES
APN: 4042-011-023
LOT 321 OF MB 12/182-183
LOT 261 OF MB 12/182-183
11383 PLAYA STREET LLC
APN: 4042-011-027
13314 INGLEWOOD AVE
HAWTHORNE, CA 90250
245 E THIRD ST
LONG BEACH, CA 90802
562-549-2142
Know what's
R McDonald's USA, LLC
9/23/2024
C 87468 PRELIMINARY SITE C1.0
PLAN
NORTH
SCALE
LEGEND:
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
SITE DATA
·
·
TITLE REPORT EXCEPTIONS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CITY OF
HAWTHORNE
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
ROSECRANS AVE
105
PROJECT SITE
W 135TH ST
W EL SEGUNDO BLVD
W 120TH ST
IMPERIAL HWY
CRENSHA
W BLVD
PRAIRIE AVE
HAWTHORNE BLVD
S INGLEW
O
OD A
VE
SAN DIEG
O FW
Y
CENTURY FWY
405
W 134TH ST
W 133RD ST
RA
M
ONA
AVE
23'-6"
11'-0" 18'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 18'-0" 250'-0" 250'-0"
35 MPH
DECISION POINT
CLEAR SIGHT
TRIANGLE
40'-9"28'-6"
Proposed Red Curb - 48'
Proposed Red Curb - 45'
Traffic Impact Assessment
29 VI. Left Turn Pocket Analysis
An analysis was completed to determine if a southbound left-turn pocket is warranted on Inglewood Avenue at the Project Driveway. The analysis references the existing conditions and the Project trip generation.
Guidelines included in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 745 LeftTurn Accommodations at Unsignalized Intersections (2013) were also referenced to evaluate the need for a left turn pocket.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts with lane utilization information were collected along Inglewood Avenue.
Based on the counts (shown in Appendix B), vehicles utilize the #1 and #2 lanes along Inglewood Avenue evenly, with the southbound direction being the higher volume direction. Additionally, the Project traffic used in the operational analysis (Figure 8) shows that the volume of vehicles making a southbound left into the proposed site are under 10 vehicles per hour for both the morning (AM) and evening (PM) time periods.
Based on guidance from the NCHRP Report 745, the following information is considered when determining the need for a left turn pocket.
• Development (urban/suburban)
• Number of lanes and approaches
• Peak-hour left turn and major roadway volume
• Design consistency within the corridor
After consideration of NCHRP guidance and review of the existing conditions and Project traffic, it is not recommended to provide a southbound left-turn pocket into the Project site. Inglewood Avenue (within the study area) provides two lanes with on-street parking in each direction. The average daily traffic along Inglewood Avenue is 21,619 vehicle per day and the existing roadway configuration is consistent within other locations in the study area.
With the addition of an exclusive left turn pocket, on-street parking in both directions would need to be removed and would result in design inconsistences along Inglewood Avenue within the study area. The offset legs at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street in addition to a left turn pocket into the Project site would result in poor access management due to reduced spacing between intersections.
The additional traffic generated by the Project could be accommodated without the addition of a left turn pocket, since the low volume of vehicles turning into the site would be able to queue in the travel lane without significantly increasing delay for through vehicle traffic. Adequate access to the site would still be provided via the driveways on 133rd Street and 134th Street.
Traffic Impact Assessment
30 VII. Crosswalk Warrant Analysis
Based on coordination with City staff, a crosswalk treatment warrant analysis at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and W 134th Street was performed to determine the most suitable crosswalk treatment.
The two possible crosswalk treatments considered include Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Because PHBs and RRFBs operate similarly, only criteria for PHB’s were analyzed as a more conservative approach. Additionally, the proximity to the signalized intersections at Inglewood Avenue and 132nd/135th Street would make PHB’s more appropriate for traffic flow and coordination.
The analysis references the existing conditions including traffic volumes, speed limit, and roadway configuration, as well as the Project trip generation. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) were used as guidance for determining the appropriate treatment at the intersection.
FHWA Analysis
The FHWA guidelines identify the following three criteria to determine the type of crosswalk treatment:
1. Roadway Configuration
2. Vehicle Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
3. Speed Limit
Table 9 below shows the criteria for the different types of countermeasures along a roadway segment or at an intersection.
Table 9: FHWA Countermeasures
Inglewood Avenue at 134th street is a 4 lane, 35 MPH roadway without a raised median and ADT of 21,000 vehicles (Appendix B).
Traffic Impact Assessment
31 From Table 9 above, the appropriate countermeasures would include a high-visibility crosswalk, advance yield striping and signage, a pedestrian refuge island, and a PHB.
CA MUTCD Analysis
The CA MUTCD guidelines identify the following four criteria to determine if a PHB is warranted:
1. Major Street Pedestrian Volume
2. Major Street Vehicle Volume
3. Speed Limit
4. Crosswalk Length
Appendix F shows the application of the guidelines based on the information along Inglewood Avenue.
Based on the CA MUTCD guidelines, a PHB would not be warranted at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street.
Although existing conditions and roadway configuration allow for the installation of a PHB or RRFB, the peak hour pedestrian volumes do not warrant the installation of crosswalk with a RRFB or PHB. Therefore, a crosswalk at the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street is not recommended.
Traffic Impact Assessment
32 VIII. Summary and Conclusions
This report documents the results of a Traffic Impact Assessment completed for the Project. The following summarizes the results of assessment:
Traffic Operation Analysis
• The traffic study includes an analysis of four (4) existing intersections which were selected as per discussions with the City.
• The Project is estimated to generate approximately 840 new daily trips, 84 new trips during the morning (AM) peak hour and 56 new trips during the evening (PM) peak hour. • Weekday peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for four (4) scenarios including Existing (2024) without Project, Existing (2024) with Project, Future (2035) Year without Project conditions, and Future (2035) Year without Project conditions. • Under existing conditions, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods, except for the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 133rd Street, which operates at LOS E during the evening (PM) peak hour. • Under existing conditions with Project, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods, except for the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street, which operates at LOS E during the evening (PM) peak hour. • Under future without Project conditions, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods, except for the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 133rd Street, which operates at LOS E during the evening (PM) peak hour. • Under future conditions with Project, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods, except for the intersection of Inglewood Avenue and 134th Street, which operates at LOS E during the evening (PM) peak hour.
VMT Analysis
• The Project proposes a 3,781 square feet (SF) Fast Food Restaurant with a Drive-Thru. The Project would screen out of further VMT analysis based on the local-serving land-use and the Project being in a low VMT area. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT.
Sight Distance Analysis
• The Project proposes three driveways to access the Project Site. One full access driveway along Inglewood Avenue, one exit-only along 133rd Street, and one full access along 134th Street.
Traffic Impact Assessment
33 • The stopping sight distance along Inglewood Avenue is 250 feet based on the latest American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2018.
• To provide a clear line of sight for vehicles exiting the Inglewood Avenue driveway, 48 feet of red curb north of the driveway and 45 feet south of the driveway is recommended. • Since on-street parking is restricted on the driveway sides of the streets, no sight distance analysis was required for the driveways along 133rd Street and 134th Street. Therefore, no additional parking restrictions are required for the driveways along 133rd Street and 134th Street.
Left-turn Pocket Analysis
• Based on guidance from the NCHRP Report 745, a southbound left-turn pocket on Inglewood Avenue is not recommended due to the roadway configuration, vehicle average daily traffic (ADT), and speed limit.
Crosswalk Warrant Analysis
• Based on guidance from the FHWA, the location of the crosswalk would require a controlled crossing such as a PHB. However, the pedestrian demand does not warrant a PHB.
Traffic Impact Assessment
34 Appendix A – Approved Project Scoping Agreement
June 26, 2024
Dweejal Torado, T.E
Assistant Engineer
City of Hawthorne
4455 West 126th Street
Hawthorne, CA 90250
RE: Traffic Study Scope of Work for the Proposed McDonald’s at 13324 South Inglewood Avenue in the City of Hawthorne
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this traffic study Scope of Work for the proposed McDonald’s at 13324 South Inglewood Avenue in the City of Hawthorne. The scope of the traffic study is summarized below. This scope of work is based on the review of the Los Angeles County (LA County) Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines(July 2020) and discussions with City Staff.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to develop a 3,781 square-foot Fast Food Restaurant with a Drive-Thru.
The site is currently vacant. The following traffic study scope of work has been prepared in accordance with the LA County Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The project site plan is shown on Attachment 1. The project is anticipated to open in 2025.
Study Scenarios
The following study scenarios will be included for analysis:
• Existing Conditions Without Project (2024)
• Existing With Project (2024)
• Cumulative Without Project (2035)
• Cumulative With Project (2035)
Each study scenario will include weekday morning peak hour and weekday evening peak hour analysis.
Study Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) analysis will be conducted for peak hour intersection operations at signalized and unsignalized intersections using the methods prescribed in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 7th Edition. The traffic analysis will be conducted using the latest version of the Synchro software.
Impact Criteria
For intersections within the City, LOS D or better will be considered as acceptable. If project traffic causes operations at an intersection to go from acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable (LOS E or F), the project would have a significant project-related effect at the intersection. If the